On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 20:32 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote: > On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 08:40 -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > On 10 November 2014 03:34, Paul Bolle <pebo...@tiscali.nl> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 11:07 -0700, mathieu.poir...@linaro.org wrote: > > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CORESIGHT_SOURCE_ETM_DEFAULT_ENABLE > > > > > > There's no Kconfig symbol CORESIGHT_SOURCE_ETM_DEFAULT_ENABLE. Neither > > > is there a preprocessor definition of this macro. So why was this > > > added? > > > > Correct - the feature (as we really want it) is currently being worked > > on but not yet part of the code base. The default option probably > > should have been removed but it doesn't do much else when mandating > > one to add a boot option on the kernel cmd line. > > I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean here. Anyhow, using a Kconfig > symbol to set a default for something that can also be set through a > kernel parameter might be considered overdoing it. But that's not for me > to decide. > > Unless the patch that adds this Kconfig symbol takes a long time to land > in linux-next, I won't be bothering you again.
Two months have passed. This code made it unchanged into v3.19-rc1. A Kconfig symbol CORESIGHT_SOURCE_ETM_DEFAULT_ENABLE is not yet part of linux-next. Should I submit a trivial patch to drop the useless check for CONFIG_CORESIGHT_SOURCE_ETM_DEFAULT_ENABLE? Paul Bolle -- 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/
