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

[Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 3:17 PM Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 03:48:44AM +0530, Amit Kucheria 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.
>
> What exactly is the problem you're trying to fix here?  For the
> drivers I looked at these were bog standard register the driver
> with the subsystem type initcalls on optional drivers so not
> doing anything particularly disruptive or anything like that.

I was trying to prune the defconfig only to drivers that make sense on
the SoC. e.g. Why should I see a brcmstb_soc_device_early_init() call
on a QCOM system when I've disabled ARCH_BRCMSTB?

I came across this while trying to figure out how to make thermal and
cpufreq frameworks initialise as early as possible.

> For any given system that's going to be an issue for the
> overwhelming majority of drivers on the tree, including those
> that aren't associated with any particular architecture.

Indeed. From a quick check, MFD and GPIO has a bunch of 'generic'
drivers that aren't SoC-specific. I'm sure there are several such
drivers in regulator framework too. They don't need to be 'fixed'.

I was just trying to ring-fence obvious SoC-specific drivers behind a
ARCH_FOO dependency since they seemed like low-hanging fruit. Let me
know if it isn't a good use of everyone's time.

Regards,
Amit