On 04/01/2018 15:06, Greentime Hu wrote: > Hi, Daniel: > > 2018-01-04 21:50 GMT+08:00 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> Hi, >> >> sorry I missed your answer. Comments below. >> >> On 13/12/2017 07:06, Greentime Hu wrote: >>> Hi, Daniel: >>> >>> 2017-12-12 18:05 GMT+08:00 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>>> On 12/12/2017 06:46, Rick Chen wrote: >>>>> ATCPIT100 is often used on the Andes architecture, >>>>> This timer provide 4 PIT channels. Each PIT channel is a >>>>> multi-function timer, can be configured as 32,16,8 bit timers >>>>> or PWM as well. >>>>> >>>>> For system timer it will set channel 1 32-bit timer0 as clock >>>>> source and count downwards until underflow and restart again. >>>> >>>> [ ... ] >>>> >>>>> +config CLKSRC_ATCPIT100 >>>>> + bool "Clocksource for AE3XX platform" >>>>> + depends on NDS32 || COMPILE_TEST >>>>> + depends on HAS_IOMEM >>>>> + help >>>>> + This option enables support for the Andestech AE3XX platform timers. >>>> >>>> Hi Rick, >>>> >>>> the general rule for the Kconfig is: >>>> >>>> bool "Clocksource for AE3XX platform" if COMPILE_TEST BTW, select TIMER_OF is missing. >>>> and no deps on the platform. >>>> >>>> It is up to the platform Kconfig to select the option. >>>> >>>> We want here a silent option but make it selectable in case of >>>> compilation test coverage. >>> >>> >>> The way we like to use it is because >>> 1. This timer is a basic component to boot an nds32 CPU and it should >>> be able to select without COMPILE_TEST for nds32 architecture. >> >> Yes, so you don't need it to be selectable, you must select it from the >> platform's Kconfig. > > I am not sure that I get your point or not. > We don't have a CONFIG_PLAT_AE3XX. > Do you mean we should create one and select CLKSRC_ATCPIT100 under > CONFIG_PLAT_AE3XX? No. Can't you add in arch/ndis32/Kconfig ? +select TIMER_ATCPIT100 Like: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/Kconfig#n50 >>> 2. It seems conflict with debug info. I am not sure if there is >>> another way to debug kernel(with debug info) with COMPILE_TEST and >>> DEBUG_INFO because we need this driver for nds32 architecture. >>> >>> Symbol: DEBUG_INFO [=n] >>> Type : boolean >>> Prompt: Compile the kernel with debug info >>> Location: >>> -> Kernel hacking >>> -> Compile-time checks and compiler options >>> Defined at lib/Kconfig.debug:140 >>> Depends on: DEBUG_KERNEL [=y] && !COMPILE_TEST [=n] >> >> The COMPILE_TEST option is only there to allow cross-compilation test >> coverage, it does not select or unselect the driver in usual way. >> >> If the COMPILE_TEST is enabled, then the option will appear in the >> menuconfig, so that gives the opportunity to select/unselect it. >> >> Otherwise, the Kconfig's platform selects automatically the driver and >> the user *can't* unselect it from the menuconfig as it is a silent >> option and that is certainly what you want. >> >>>> Also, this driver is not a CLKSRC but a TIMER. Rename CLKSRC_ATCPIT100 >>>> to TIMER_ATCPIT100. >>> >>> Thanks. We will rename it in the next version patch. >> >> You just resend an entire series V5 for the architecture. I'm confused, >> what is the merging path ? > > Sorry. I didn't get your point. > We sent the timer patch and the architecture patch together because it > would be easier for reviewer to check the vdso implementations. > What do you mean about the merging path? I received a [Vx y/3] series and I received a [Vx y/39]. The former from Rick Chen means to me "please pick them through your tree". The latter from you means to me "can you ack the patches so I can merge them through my tree". Note you will have to resend the entire arch series for every single review/comment (that could end up upset the Cc'ed people). Which one should I review ? I can not track different patchset implementing the same thing. Which one should I comment, review ? Are the comments I did on [Vx y/3] taken into account in the arch series ? etc ... Please clarify, it is confusing and impossible to review in this situation. I suggest we stick to the x/3 series, so I can comment it and you can resend a new version without resending the entire arch series. So I can merge it through my tree, and you get it via eg. a shared immutable branch. The arch series will be reduced by 3 patches. -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
