On 12 February 2014 12:55, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/02/14 09:08, Sachin Kamat wrote: >> On 11 February 2014 19:57, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 11/02/14 14:01, Sachin Kamat wrote: >>>> On 10 February 2014 17:48, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> On 17/01/14 06:32, Sachin Kamat wrote: >>>>>> Exynos is now a DT only platform. Hence there is no need >>>>>> for an explicit OF dependency. Remove it. >>>>> >>>>> But the driver still depends on OF, doesn't it? I don't think it's very >>>>> good for the driver Kconfig to make presumptions about what ARCH_* >>>>> depend on. >>>> >>>> Depending upon nested dependencies is redundant IMHO. >>> >>> Well, a driver should be independent of the underlying arch. In >>> practice, we have ARCH dependencies, as many of the devices only exist >>> on that arch. But I think the drivers should still be designed to be >>> arch-independent, as far as possible (omapdss compiles fine on x86). >>> >>> If the driver depends on OF, it should depend on OF in the Kconfig, no >>> matter if the arch also depends on OF. >>> >>> I don't really care if the EXYNOS_LCD_S6E8AX0 has OF dependency or not, >>> but to me this just looks unneeded cleanup, cluttering git logs, and in >>> my opinion it's even going to the wrong direction. >> >> Your argument makes sense. Upon further experimentation I found that even the >> Exynos video drivers are ARCH independent (i.e., they build on x86 too) and do >> not need to depend on OF for compilation. So I believe, we can remove both these >> dependencies. What is your opinion? > > Indeed, the driver doesn't even seem to call any of_* funcs. Looking at > the commit f9b1e013f1c6723798b8f7f5b83297e2837aaef7 (video: exynos_dp: > remove non-DT support for Exynos Display Port), it kind of sounds to me > that the OF dependency was put there just to prevent non-DT use. > > I'm fine with removing OF dependency, if the commit description is > updated to say that it can be removed as the driver doesn't actually > depend on OF at all. > > As for the ARCH dependency, I think we should keep it. I once removed > ARCH_OMAP dependency from omapdss, but Linus wasn't impressed when his > kernel compilation started to ask him if he wants to enable OMAPDSS > this, OMAPDSS that =). So I think it's fine to keep ARCH dependencies in > cases where the driver is clearly used only on some architecture. Yes, I remember that :) > > However, you can use COMPILE_TEST kconfig option if you want to compile > test on other archs. I.e.: > > depends on ARCH_EXYNOS || COMPILE_TEST For now I will update the commit description and re-send the patch. Thanks for your comments Tomi. -- With warm regards, Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
