On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 12:27:11PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:15:00AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > > > But broadly the direction seems that drivers should have minimal > > > dependencies so, eg, the thermal maintainer compiling for x86 should > > > be able to compile test/static analyze your driver.. > > > Well, I do not see much of this attempt actually. Do you have some link > > / evidene that shows someone who actually cares about compiling drivers > > for targets that they are not used for? On this specific driver, I > > actually have had exactly the opposite advice [1]. I am not convinced > > people actually want to do that. > > There was a discussion a bit ago, but I can't find a link.. The > context was subsystem maintainers are being asked to look after more > code with the DT transition moving things out of arch/arm and at least > one complained they couldn't even compile test on x86... But again, I > can't find a link and you are right, there are lots and lots of > 'depends ARCH..' style things in kConfig already. > > Lets just call it something to think about. Tomi started a thread related to this recently: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136731558332265&w=2 I think there's some good reasons listed there, but I guess up to the subsystem maintainers to decide what they prefer. A. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
