Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 17 Jan 2023 09:21:14 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>
Cc:     Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>,
        linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org,
        Yan-Hsuan Chuang <tony0620emma@gmail.com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, Chris Morgan <macroalpha82@gmail.com>,
        Nitin Gupta <nitin.gupta981@gmail.com>,
        Neo Jou <neojou@gmail.com>, Pkshih <pkshih@realtek.com>,
        Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/19] rtw88: Add SDIO support
Message-ID: <20230117092114.62ba2f66@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <87y1q28o5a.fsf@kernel.org>
References: <20221227233020.284266-1-martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>
        <87y1q28o5a.fsf@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 18:01:05 +0200 Kalle Valo wrote:
> > - My understanding is that there's a discussion about the rtw88 Kconfig
> >   symbols. We're adding four new ones within this series. It's not
> >   clear to me what the conclusion is on this topic though.  
> 
> Yeah, there were no conclusions about that. Jakub, do you have any
> opinions? For example, do we keep per device Kconfig options (eg.
> CONFIG_RTW88_8822BS, RTW88_8822CS and so on) or should we have only one
> more bus level option (eg. CONFIG_RTW88_SDIO)? rtw88 now uses the former
> and IIRC so does mt76. ath10k/ath11k/ath12k again use the latter :)

No strong feelings. Larry (IIRC) provided a fair justification for 
the RTW symbols. If the module binary grows noticeably then having 
the kconfig does indeed make sense.