On 06/17/2014 02:53 AM, Paul Bolle wrote: > Doug, > > On Fri, 2014-06-13 at 08:22 -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 08:11 -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >>>> 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? > > So all the hits you quoted above are actually from code that's never > going to be included in the kernel tree, right? If so, then yes, we're > only discussing a single comment. > >> 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? > > Yes, I'm using a script to check for Kconfig macros, among other things. > It doesn't care about comments (because every now and then mistakes are > made in comments too, and some of those can get surprisingly confusing). > > Anyhow, the CONFIG_ prefix used in the kernel tree is quite generic, but > we're stuck with it. Would it be bothersome to drop it in that comment? > Mentioning a preprocessor macro from a separate project is a bit > confusing to begin with. How is one supposed to know that this is a > reference to something out of tree? > > So, in summary, while we're apparently only discussing a single comment, > I would appreciate it if it could be reworded, preferably by dropping > that the CONFIG_ prefix. But other people might care very little, as > they don't share this particular pet peeve. Can't your tool maintain a whitelist or ignore list? There are many cases where the kernel can pull in headers/data from other projects (Firmware interfaces to an arbitrarily large set of HW, Device trees, IO/network protocools, perhaps more). It feels quite unreasonable for the kernel to decide that it exclusively owns the CONFIG_* namespace even in comments, and that every other project it interacts with must not use that namespace. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
