Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Wang Wenhu <wenhu.wang@vivo.com>
To:     oss@buserror.net, Wang Wenhu <wenhu.wang@vivo.com>,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org
Cc:     christophe.leroy@c-s.fr, kernel@vivo.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        mpe@ellerman.id.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2,1/5] powerpc: 85xx: make FSL_85XX_CACHE_SRAM configurable
Date:   Wed, 15 Apr 2020 21:11:13 -0700
Message-Id: <20200416041113.112735-1-wenhu.wang@vivo.com>
In-Reply-To: <36961f9d8c533d8b576043a2c6fc4859accfd9f1.camel@buserror.net>
References: <36961f9d8c533d8b576043a2c6fc4859accfd9f1.camel@buserror.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>

>> +	bool "32-bit kernel"
>
>Why make that user selectable ?
>
>Either a kernel is 64-bit or it is 32-bit. So having PPC64 user 
>selectable is all we need.
>
>And what is the link between this change and the description in the log ?
>
>>   	default y if !PPC64
>>   	select KASAN_VMALLOC if KASAN && MODULES
>>   
>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ config PPC_BOOK3S_32
>>   	bool
>>   
>>   menu "Processor support"
>> +
>
>Why adding this space ?
>
>>   choice
>>   	prompt "Processor Type"
>>   	depends on PPC32
>> @@ -211,9 +212,9 @@ config PPC_BOOK3E
>>   	depends on PPC_BOOK3E_64
>>   
>>   config E500
>> +	bool "e500 Support"
>>   	select FSL_EMB_PERFMON
>>   	select PPC_FSL_BOOK3E
>> -	bool
>
>Why make this user-selectable ? This is already selected by the 
>processors requiring it, ie 8500, e5500 and e6500.
>
>Is there any other case where we need E500 ?
>
>And again, what's the link between this change and the description in 
>the log ?
>
>
>>   
>>   config PPC_E500MC
>>   	bool "e500mc Support"
>> 
>
>Christophe

Hi, Scott, Christophe!

I find that I did not get the point well of the defferences between
configurability and selectability(maybe words I created) of Kconfig items.

You are right that FSL_85XX_CACHE_SRAM should only be selected by a caller
but never enable it seperately.

Same answer for the comments from Christophe. I will drop this patch in v3.

Thanks,
Wenhu