Re: [PATCH 0/4] Cleanup arm64 driver dependencies

[Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Arnd,

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:59 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:18 AM Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I was using initcall_debugging on a QCOM platform and ran across a bunch of
> > driver initcalls that are enabled even if their SoC support is disabled.
> >
> > Here are some fixups for a subset of them.
>
> The idea seems reasonable, disabling a platform may just turn off
> all the drivers that are not useful elsewhere, but there are mistakes
> in a lot of your changes, so I'm certainly not applying these for 5.4.

OK, thanks for confirming that you have no objections to such changes, per-se.

I'll spend some more time ensuring COMPILE_TEST coverage for these
cleanups. I only focused on quickly cleaning up my initcall_debug
output for now.

> Generally speaking, the way that works best is
>
> config SUBSYS_DRIVER_FOO
>        tristate "SUBSYS support for FOO platform"
>        depends on ARCH_FOO || COMPILE_TEST
>        depends on SUBSYS
>        default "m" if ARCH_FOO
>
> This means it's enabled as a loadable module by default (use
> default "y" instead where necessary) as long as the platform
> is enabled, but an x86 allmodconfig build also includes it
> because of COMPILE_TEST, while any configuration without
> ARCH_FOO that is not compile-testing cannot enable it.

How would you like to handle defconfigs which list a driver
explicitly? Should we add ARCH_FOO to those defconfigs or remove
DRIVER_FOO from them?

Regards,
Amit