On Tue, May 06, 2014 at 11:12:40AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 05:54:47PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > [ CC linux-sh and Magnus Damm (shmobile co-maintainer) ] > > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 11:26:37PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > > These defconfigs contain the CONFIG_M25P80 symbol, which is now > > > dependent on the MTD_SPI_NOR symbol. Add CONFIG_MTD_SPI_NOR to satisfy > > > the new dependency. > > > > > > At the same time, drop the now-nonexistent CONFIG_MTD_CHAR symbol. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <computersforpe...@gmail.com> > > > Cc: Russell King <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> > > > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> > > > Cc: Olof Johansson <o...@lixom.net> > > > Cc: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org > > > Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > --- > > > This patch catches all the configs I couldn't find a sub-arch for, plus > > > the ARM > > > multiplatform defconfigs > > > > > > arch/arm/configs/bockw_defconfig | 2 +- > > > arch/arm/configs/koelsch_defconfig | 1 + > > > arch/arm/configs/lager_defconfig | 1 + > > > > The above changes are for shmobile SoC defconfigs which I maintain > > (as is one other patch in the series). > > While the below ones are not. > > This is admittedly a confusing process. I have to parse each defconfig > to figure out what the mach-* is, then read MAINTAINERS. Perhaps you can > update your MAINTAINERS entries? This is a wide problem, that makes > patch submission for defconfigs even more difficult.
U understand it is confusing. I'll see about updating my MAINTAINERS entries accordingly. > Olof, other ARM SOC maintainers, > > What do you recommend? Should I send another couple of patches just to > split this trivial patch? Olof mentioned taking some patch(es) directly, > and handling merge conflicts when they come. > > > With regards to updating shmobile configuration options, > > we have recently moved towards using Kconfig rather than > > defconfig in cases where selecting A means we really ought > > to select B too. Something along the lines of: > > > > select CONFIG_MTD_SPI_NOR if CONFIG_MTD_M25P80 > > That seems like you're just avoiding touching defconfig for the sake of > not touching defconfig. Additionally, this method only really makes > sense for an upgrade path (otherwise, how would you configure MTD_M25P80 > && !MTD_SPI_NOR?). Is this approach consistent across other mach-*? I do not fully understand your patchset. But from my point of view it seems to me that the key question is "is it desirable to configure MTD_M25P80 && !MTD_SPI_NOR". I suspect not as below you confirm that MTD_SPI_NOR should always be selected if MTD_M25P80 if selected. > > Do you consider that CONFIG_MTD_SPI_NOR should always > > be selected if CONFIG_MTD_M25P80 if selected? > > Yes. That's what "depends on" means. In that case I think that dependency should be expressed using Kconfig. That way anyone (or any defconfig) that selects MTD_M25P80 will also get MTD_SPI_NOR selected without needing to know that the former depends on the later. > BTW, M25P80 will likely be moved under the SPI-NOR submenu eventually > (its driver is not really a "Standalone MTD" anymore), but currently > this is just a "depends on". > > > If so, perhaps it would be best to update the CONFIG_MTD_M25P80 Kconfig > > node to select CONFIG_MTD_M25P80. This would probably imply that most > > if not all of this series would no longer be needed. > > I do not understand this paragraph. How does M25P80 select M25P80? Sorry, I meant to say "... update the MTD_M25P80 Kconfig node to select MTD_SPI_NOR". > > If not, would you be able to make a patch to add something like > > the above snippet to arch/arm/shmobile/Kconfig (probably more than once) > > and drop the changes to shmobile defconfigs from this series? > > Feel free to submit your own patch if you don't want mine. > > > > arch/arm/configs/multi_v5_defconfig | 1 + > > > arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 + > > > 5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/bockw_defconfig > > > b/arch/arm/configs/bockw_defconfig > > > index e816140d81c5..28339e072a71 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm/configs/bockw_defconfig > > > +++ b/arch/arm/configs/bockw_defconfig > > > @@ -50,11 +50,11 @@ CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y > > > # CONFIG_PREVENT_FIRMWARE_BUILD is not set > > > # CONFIG_FW_LOADER is not set > > > CONFIG_MTD=y > > > -CONFIG_MTD_CHAR=y > > > > The above change seems unrelated to the subject of the patch. > > > > If its valid then I'd prefer it submitted as a separate patch. > > Seriously? It's mentioned in the commit description, and it's really > really trivial. Sorry, I missed it in the changelog. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
