Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] mfd: cros_ec: Sync to the latest cros_ec_commands.h from EC sources

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Paul,

On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Doug,
>
> On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 08:11 -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 09:46 +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> >> > From: Bill Richardson <wfrichar@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >
>> >> > This just updates include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h to match the
>> >> > latest EC version (which is the One True Source for such things).  See
>> >> > <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/ec>
>>
>> I believe most of your questions are answered by checking out the git
>> tree referenced above.  ...but see below for details.  This header is
>> a common interface between the kernel and the EC.
>
> I didn't realize that this was a link to a tree.
>
>> > CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE doesn't match anything in linux-next. Is
>> > a Kconfig symbol CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE perhaps queued somewhere?
>>
>> This is a config option on the ChromeOS EC
>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/ec>.  Doing a
>> grep there:
>>
>> board/samus/board.h:#define CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE
>> common/charge_state_v2.c:#ifdef CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE
>> common/charge_state_v2.c:#ifdef CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE
>> common/charge_state_v2.c:#ifdef CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE
>> driver/battery/samus.c:#ifdef CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE
>> driver/battery/samus.c:#endif   /* CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE */
>> include/config.h:#undef CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE
>> include/ec_commands.h:  /* Range for CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE params */
>> test/test_config.h:#define CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE
>
> I see. So this is not a Kconfig macro but a general macro with a CONFIG_
> prefix. There are quite a bit of those in the tree already, but still,
> would another prefix also do?

Given that it's an entirely separate project and this is a valid
CONFIG option in that project, it seems a lot to ask them not to use
the CONFIG_ prefix.  Also: the part you are objecting to is only a
comment, right?

We could certainly add extra wording in the comment to make it obvious
that this is a CONFIG option for the EC and not the kernel.  Would
that be enough?  ...or are you trying to use some scripts to
automatically process files to look for CONFIG options?

-Doug
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux SoC Development]     [Linux Rockchip Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux