From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> To: Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: kernel: need extern variable 'screen_info' for related driver using. Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:03:36 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20130521090336.GC10453@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <519B278B.6030708@asianux.com> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 08:51:39AM +0100, Chen Gang wrote: > On 05/21/2013 02:57 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> wrote: > >>> >> I think it would be better if we added a something like > >>> >> CONFIG_HAVE_VGA_CONSOLE, which VGA_CONSOLE can then depend on. Architectures > >>> >> like x86 can then select the former, and we can remove the long list of > >>> >> architectures from the current option. > >> > > >> > I guess your meaning is: > >> > > >> > under arm64, actually, need not support 'VGA_CONSOLE', and 'screen_info' is useless. > >> > So better to define 'CONFIG_HAVE_VGA_CONSOLE' which 'VGA_CONSOLE' can depend on it, and in arm64, we do not define CONFIG_HAVE_VGA_CONSOLE. > >> > > >> > Is it correct ? > > No, you missed "and we can remove the long list of architectures from the > > current option". > > > > OK, thanks. > > Is it correct: "it is unnecessary to add 'screen_info' to the code, for > arm64 will never support 'VGA_CONSOLE'" ? We can add the screen_info if and when we need to support a VGA console. In the meantime, let's not add things on a whim. > >> > If so, I recommend to add depend item for VGA_CONSOLE directly: > > I strongly support CONFIG_HAVE_VGA_CONSOLE. > > For me, I still recommend add 'ARM64' in the long list of architectures > for 'VGA_CONSOLE', I have 3 reasons, please check: > > a. current implementation only changes one area which only related with > arm64 and 'VGA_CONSOLE', but if use 'CONFIG_HAVE_VGA_CONSOLE', that will > touch many multiple platforms dependency, at least we need discuss about > it with multiple platforms guys for it, firstly. That's a weak argument. You might as well propose the cleanup and see what people say. > b. We can find some cases to use CONFIG_HAVE_* as dpend on, but I can > not find any cases which let CONFIG_'samename' depend on > CONFIG_HAVE_'samename'. Erm. PERF_EVENTS, BPF_JIT, IDE, ...? > c. The original way still has effect, although it seems not quit > beautiful, but it is correct and still clear for readers, it is still > sustainable. Sure, it works, but we're just contributing to the mess that's been built up ever time another architecture has done the same thing. It's not hard to try and clean it up. Will
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH] arm64: kernel: need extern variable 'screen_info' for related driver using. Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:03:36 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20130521090336.GC10453@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <519B278B.6030708@asianux.com> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 08:51:39AM +0100, Chen Gang wrote: > On 05/21/2013 02:57 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:15 AM, Chen Gang <gang.chen@asianux.com> wrote: > >>> >> I think it would be better if we added a something like > >>> >> CONFIG_HAVE_VGA_CONSOLE, which VGA_CONSOLE can then depend on. Architectures > >>> >> like x86 can then select the former, and we can remove the long list of > >>> >> architectures from the current option. > >> > > >> > I guess your meaning is: > >> > > >> > under arm64, actually, need not support 'VGA_CONSOLE', and 'screen_info' is useless. > >> > So better to define 'CONFIG_HAVE_VGA_CONSOLE' which 'VGA_CONSOLE' can depend on it, and in arm64, we do not define CONFIG_HAVE_VGA_CONSOLE. > >> > > >> > Is it correct ? > > No, you missed "and we can remove the long list of architectures from the > > current option". > > > > OK, thanks. > > Is it correct: "it is unnecessary to add 'screen_info' to the code, for > arm64 will never support 'VGA_CONSOLE'" ? We can add the screen_info if and when we need to support a VGA console. In the meantime, let's not add things on a whim. > >> > If so, I recommend to add depend item for VGA_CONSOLE directly: > > I strongly support CONFIG_HAVE_VGA_CONSOLE. > > For me, I still recommend add 'ARM64' in the long list of architectures > for 'VGA_CONSOLE', I have 3 reasons, please check: > > a. current implementation only changes one area which only related with > arm64 and 'VGA_CONSOLE', but if use 'CONFIG_HAVE_VGA_CONSOLE', that will > touch many multiple platforms dependency, at least we need discuss about > it with multiple platforms guys for it, firstly. That's a weak argument. You might as well propose the cleanup and see what people say. > b. We can find some cases to use CONFIG_HAVE_* as dpend on, but I can > not find any cases which let CONFIG_'samename' depend on > CONFIG_HAVE_'samename'. Erm. PERF_EVENTS, BPF_JIT, IDE, ...? > c. The original way still has effect, although it seems not quit > beautiful, but it is correct and still clear for readers, it is still > sustainable. Sure, it works, but we're just contributing to the mess that's been built up ever time another architecture has done the same thing. It's not hard to try and clean it up. Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-21 9:04 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2013-05-20 5:42 [PATCH] arm64: kernel: need extern variable 'screen_info' for related driver using Chen Gang 2013-05-20 5:42 ` Chen Gang 2013-05-20 9:10 ` Will Deacon 2013-05-20 9:10 ` Will Deacon 2013-05-21 3:15 ` Chen Gang 2013-05-21 3:15 ` Chen Gang 2013-05-21 6:57 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2013-05-21 6:57 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2013-05-21 7:51 ` Chen Gang 2013-05-21 7:51 ` Chen Gang 2013-05-21 9:03 ` Will Deacon [this message] 2013-05-21 9:03 ` Will Deacon 2013-05-21 10:13 ` Chen Gang 2013-05-21 10:13 ` Chen Gang 2013-05-21 13:15 ` Catalin Marinas 2013-05-21 13:15 ` Catalin Marinas 2013-05-22 0:50 ` Chen Gang 2013-05-22 0:50 ` Chen Gang 2013-05-21 11:07 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2013-05-21 11:07 ` Geert Uytterhoeven 2013-05-21 11:40 ` Chen Gang 2013-05-21 11:40 ` Chen Gang
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20130521090336.GC10453@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com \ --to=will.deacon@arm.com \ --cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \ --cc=arnd@arndb.de \ --cc=gang.chen@asianux.com \ --cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \ --cc=tony@atomide.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.