On 17.05.2022 14:14:04, Max Staudt wrote: > > After looking through drivers/net/can/Kconfig I would probably phrase > > it like this: > > > > Select CAN devices (hw/sw) -> we compile a can_dev module. E.g. to > > handle the skb stuff for vcan's. > > > > Select hardware CAN devices -> we compile the netlink stuff into > > can_dev and offer CAN_CALC_BITTIMING and CAN_LEDS to be compiled into > > can_dev too. > > > > In the latter case: The selection of flexcan, ti_hecc and mcp251xfd > > automatically selects CAN_RX_OFFLOAD which is then also compiled into > > can_dev. > > > > Would that fit in terms of complexity? > > IMHO these should always be compiled into can-dev. Out of tree drivers > are fairly common here, and having to determine which kind of can-dev > (stripped or not) the user has on their system is a nightmare waiting to > happen. I personally don't care about out-of-tree drivers. Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
