Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1568239378.git.amit.kucheria@linaro.org> <20190912094651.GH2036@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20190912094651.GH2036@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:33:20 +0530
Message-ID: <CAP245DXBwwtcbjRQV_bCdYK5SZH9C9oxZJ2rFraJpbd5L0sHvw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Cleanup arm64 driver dependencies
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Lists LAKML <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        arm-soc <arm@kernel.org>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@ti.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-pci <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:17 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 03:48:44AM +0530, Amit Kucheria wrote:
>
> > I was using initcall_debugging on a QCOM platform and ran across a bunch of
> > driver initcalls that are enabled even if their SoC support is disabled.
>
> What exactly is the problem you're trying to fix here?  For the
> drivers I looked at these were bog standard register the driver
> with the subsystem type initcalls on optional drivers so not
> doing anything particularly disruptive or anything like that.

I was trying to prune the defconfig only to drivers that make sense on
the SoC. e.g. Why should I see a brcmstb_soc_device_early_init() call
on a QCOM system when I've disabled ARCH_BRCMSTB?

I came across this while trying to figure out how to make thermal and
cpufreq frameworks initialise as early as possible.

> For any given system that's going to be an issue for the
> overwhelming majority of drivers on the tree, including those
> that aren't associated with any particular architecture.

Indeed. From a quick check, MFD and GPIO has a bunch of 'generic'
drivers that aren't SoC-specific. I'm sure there are several such
drivers in regulator framework too. They don't need to be 'fixed'.

I was just trying to ring-fence obvious SoC-specific drivers behind a
ARCH_FOO dependency since they seemed like low-hanging fruit. Let me
know if it isn't a good use of everyone's time.

Regards,
Amit