Hello, On 08/11/2014 05:59 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Bartlomiej, > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > <b.zolnierkie@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Monday, August 11, 2014 02:52:27 PM Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >>> Hello Bartlomiej, >>> >>> On 08/11/2014 02:40 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >>> >> index fc7d168..c390bb9 100644 >>> >> --- a/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig >>> >> +++ b/arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig >>> >> @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ CONFIG_SPI_S3C64XX=y >>> >> CONFIG_I2C_S3C2410=y >>> >> CONFIG_DEBUG_GPIO=y >>> >> CONFIG_POWER_SUPPLY=y >>> >> +CONFIG_BATTERY_SBS=m >>> > >>> > Why not make it "=y"? >>> > >>> > Rationale: >>> > - currently no hardware related option uses "=m" in exynos_defconfig >>> > - it would match the SBS option usage in multi_v7_defconfig >>> > >>> >> CONFIG_CHARGER_TPS65090=y >>> >> # CONFIG_HWMON is not set >>> >> CONFIG_THERMAL=y >>> > >>> >>> I know but personally I think this should be changed. The idea of having a multi >>> platform kernel is to build a single kernel image that can be used to boot >>> different platforms. Not all platforms have a SBS-compliant battery so this >>> support shouldn't be built in the kernel image IMHO. >>> >>> This also matches to what real users will do since distributions most likely >>> will have a minimal kernel and every possible hardware support will be enabled >>> as a loadable kernel module. This is what distros do for other platforms too. >>> >>> If someone has a different use case and wants a kernel image that is optimized >>> for a particular platform then she has to create its own defconfig anyways. >> >> Distributions usually use their own configs anyway and the current most >> popular use case for exynos_defconfig (not multi_v7_defconfig) seems to >> be to build kernel image alone and use it without any modules: >> >> $ grep "=m" arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig >> CONFIG_DM_CRYPT=m >> >> $ grep "=m" .config >> CONFIG_NET_IP_TUNNEL=m >> CONFIG_INET_TUNNEL=m >> CONFIG_IPV6=m >> CONFIG_INET6_XFRM_MODE_TRANSPORT=m >> CONFIG_INET6_XFRM_MODE_TUNNEL=m >> CONFIG_INET6_XFRM_MODE_BEET=m >> CONFIG_IPV6_SIT=m >> CONFIG_DM_CRYPT=m >> CONFIG_CRYPTO_RNG=m >> CONFIG_CRYPTO_ANSI_CPRNG=m >> >> What I'm trying to say is that there is a high probability that people >> will continue to use just the kernel image for exynos_defconfig and >> will therefore miss SBS battery support altogether (which is only 3.6 >> kB of code more in the kernel image so there is no much gain in making >> it modular currently). > > I'm not against making it =y for exynos_defconfig. I do pretty > strongly agree that the multi_v7 version should be =m eventually, > though. We'd need to do everything we can to make that kernel > smaller. > Same for me. I don't have such a strong opinion about this so if you think that I should re-spin to change to =m, I will. I do think that we should try to keep the delta between exynos_defconfig and multi_v7_defconfig as small as possible and eventually even get rid of exynos_defconfig. Since building everything as built-in and having a config targeted to a single platform is not aligned with the effort to have support for multi platforms kernels. > -Doug > Best regards, Javier -- 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
 |