Hi Boris, Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu, 21 Feb 2019 12:14:37 +0100: > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 12:06:10 +0100 > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi Boris, > > > > Boris Brezillon <bbrezillon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu, 21 Feb 2019 > > 11:55:54 +0100: > > > > > On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 11:01:51 +0100 > > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > Force the NAND core be compiled-in when using any kind of NAND. > > > > > > Why? > > > > Because all the logic that comes later in the series relies on this > > change. I need the NAND core to be compiled-in, > > Hm, not exactly compiled-in as it can still be selected as a module. Yes, do you think it is a problem? > > > as well the ECC engine > > core, as well as everything that is shared between raw NAND and > > SPI-NAND which I move in the NAND core. > > Yes, the core is required for SPI NAND and soon will be for RAW NAND, > but I still don't see the problem with the "select NAND_CORE" approach, > sorry. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also remove the redundant dependencies on MTD which is enforced by the > > > > game of the if/endif blocs. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig | 12 ++++++++++-- > > > > drivers/mtd/nand/onenand/Kconfig | 1 - > > > > drivers/mtd/nand/raw/Kconfig | 1 - > > > > drivers/mtd/nand/spi/Kconfig | 1 - > > > > 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig b/drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig > > > > index 495751ed3fd7..e8d26a715922 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/Kconfig > > > > @@ -1,6 +1,14 @@ > > > > -config MTD_NAND_CORE > > > > - tristate > > > > +menuconfig MTD_NAND_CORE > > > > + tristate "NAND" > > > > > > Definitely not something we want to expose in menuconfig. > > > > I considered the NAND core as essential when using raw NAND and > > SPI-NAND. > > It is needed for SPI NAND, and will be for raw NAND for sure, but I > still see no reasons for turning it into a user-visible option. > > > Hence, turning it into a menuconfig option make the whole > > NAND subsystem available (or not) and will appear in a different > > "menuconfig page", which really enhances the readability. > > That's a different thing, and I have no problem with adding an extra > level in the Kconfig hierarchy. Then why not using this symbol? I don't get why you are opposed. So you would like a config NAND_CORE (invisible) and a visible menuconfig NAND? And all entries in the NAND menu selecting NAND_CORE? > > > > > > > > > > + default y > > > > > > I don't see what's the problem with letting SPINAND, RAWNAND and > > > ONENAND select this options if they actually need it. > > > > See the reason above, hence having it "default y" is needed to do not > > break existing defconfigs. > > Not if you make RAW_NAND select NAND_CORE. Thanks, Miquèl ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/