All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Josh Cartwright <joshc@codeaurora.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	Gilad Avidov <gavidov@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
	Michael Bohan <mbohan@codeaurora.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
	Sagar Dharia <sdharia@codeaurora.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] spmi: Linux driver framework for SPMI
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:40:55 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130816204055.GK4035@joshc.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130816195849.GA17974@kroah.com>

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:58:49PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 02:47:15PM -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> > > 
> > > Why?  If debugfs isn't enabled, the functions should just compile away
> > > with the debugfs_() calls, so no need to do this type of thing here,
> > > right?
> > 
> > Not sure I follow you, but it may be because this is a bit misleading.
> > 
> > Currently CONFIG_DEBUG_FS is being extended to also mean "do you want
> > the SPMI core to create device entries?".  It would probably make more
> > sense to have a CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG option which is def_bool DEBUG_FS, as
> > other busses have.
> > 
> > The #ifdef here would then be #ifdef CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG, as well as in
> > the Makefile:
> > 
> >   spmi-core-$(CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG) += spmi-dbgfs.o
> 
> If debugfs is enabled why wouldn't you want debugfs entries for your
> devices?  Don't assume a user is going to be able to rebuild their
> kernel just for debugging stuff (hint, they usually aren't), so having
> these present, if they don't cause any performance issues, is usually
> best to always have around.

Okay, that makes sense.

So, backing up a step, you're original comment was regarding the
CONFIG_DEBUG_FS conditional in spmi-dbgfs.h:

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:46:14AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi-dbgfs.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
> > +/* Copyright (c) 2012-2013, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 and
> > + * only version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > + *
> > + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> > + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> > + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> > + */
> > +#ifndef _SPMI_DBGFS_H
> > +#define _SPMI_DBGFS_H
> > +
> > +#include <linux/spmi.h>
> > +#include <linux/debugfs.h>
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> 
> Why?  If debugfs isn't enabled, the functions should just compile away
> with the debugfs_() calls, so no need to do this type of thing here,
> right?

The reason why this is done is because the spmi debugfs support code is
is only built-in when CONFIG_DEBUG_FS is set.

Would you rather it always be built-in (well, whenever SPMI support is
included), and rely on the debugfs_* shims to handle the
!CONFIG_DEBUG_FS case?

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: Josh Cartwright <joshc@codeaurora.org>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>,
	Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
	Sagar Dharia <sdharia@codeaurora.org>,
	Gilad Avidov <gavidov@codeaurora.org>,
	Michael Bohan <mbohan@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] spmi: Linux driver framework for SPMI
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:40:55 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130816204055.GK4035@joshc.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130816195849.GA17974@kroah.com>

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:58:49PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 02:47:15PM -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> > > 
> > > Why?  If debugfs isn't enabled, the functions should just compile away
> > > with the debugfs_() calls, so no need to do this type of thing here,
> > > right?
> > 
> > Not sure I follow you, but it may be because this is a bit misleading.
> > 
> > Currently CONFIG_DEBUG_FS is being extended to also mean "do you want
> > the SPMI core to create device entries?".  It would probably make more
> > sense to have a CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG option which is def_bool DEBUG_FS, as
> > other busses have.
> > 
> > The #ifdef here would then be #ifdef CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG, as well as in
> > the Makefile:
> > 
> >   spmi-core-$(CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG) += spmi-dbgfs.o
> 
> If debugfs is enabled why wouldn't you want debugfs entries for your
> devices?  Don't assume a user is going to be able to rebuild their
> kernel just for debugging stuff (hint, they usually aren't), so having
> these present, if they don't cause any performance issues, is usually
> best to always have around.

Okay, that makes sense.

So, backing up a step, you're original comment was regarding the
CONFIG_DEBUG_FS conditional in spmi-dbgfs.h:

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:46:14AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi-dbgfs.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
> > +/* Copyright (c) 2012-2013, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 and
> > + * only version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > + *
> > + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> > + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> > + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> > + */
> > +#ifndef _SPMI_DBGFS_H
> > +#define _SPMI_DBGFS_H
> > +
> > +#include <linux/spmi.h>
> > +#include <linux/debugfs.h>
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> 
> Why?  If debugfs isn't enabled, the functions should just compile away
> with the debugfs_() calls, so no need to do this type of thing here,
> right?

The reason why this is done is because the spmi debugfs support code is
is only built-in when CONFIG_DEBUG_FS is set.

Would you rather it always be built-in (well, whenever SPMI support is
included), and rely on the debugfs_* shims to handle the
!CONFIG_DEBUG_FS case?

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: joshc@codeaurora.org (Josh Cartwright)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 1/3] spmi: Linux driver framework for SPMI
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 15:40:55 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130816204055.GK4035@joshc.qualcomm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130816195849.GA17974@kroah.com>

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 12:58:49PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 02:47:15PM -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> > > 
> > > Why?  If debugfs isn't enabled, the functions should just compile away
> > > with the debugfs_() calls, so no need to do this type of thing here,
> > > right?
> > 
> > Not sure I follow you, but it may be because this is a bit misleading.
> > 
> > Currently CONFIG_DEBUG_FS is being extended to also mean "do you want
> > the SPMI core to create device entries?".  It would probably make more
> > sense to have a CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG option which is def_bool DEBUG_FS, as
> > other busses have.
> > 
> > The #ifdef here would then be #ifdef CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG, as well as in
> > the Makefile:
> > 
> >   spmi-core-$(CONFIG_SPMI_DEBUG) += spmi-dbgfs.o
> 
> If debugfs is enabled why wouldn't you want debugfs entries for your
> devices?  Don't assume a user is going to be able to rebuild their
> kernel just for debugging stuff (hint, they usually aren't), so having
> these present, if they don't cause any performance issues, is usually
> best to always have around.

Okay, that makes sense.

So, backing up a step, you're original comment was regarding the
CONFIG_DEBUG_FS conditional in spmi-dbgfs.h:

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:46:14AM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi-dbgfs.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
> > +/* Copyright (c) 2012-2013, The Linux Foundation. All rights reserved.
> > + *
> > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 and
> > + * only version 2 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > + *
> > + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> > + * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> > + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
> > + * GNU General Public License for more details.
> > + */
> > +#ifndef _SPMI_DBGFS_H
> > +#define _SPMI_DBGFS_H
> > +
> > +#include <linux/spmi.h>
> > +#include <linux/debugfs.h>
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> 
> Why?  If debugfs isn't enabled, the functions should just compile away
> with the debugfs_() calls, so no need to do this type of thing here,
> right?

The reason why this is done is because the spmi debugfs support code is
is only built-in when CONFIG_DEBUG_FS is set.

Would you rather it always be built-in (well, whenever SPMI support is
included), and rely on the debugfs_* shims to handle the
!CONFIG_DEBUG_FS case?

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

  reply	other threads:[~2013-08-16 20:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-08-15 19:50 [PATCH RFC 0/3] Add support for the System Power Management Interface (SPMI) Josh Cartwright
2013-08-15 19:50 ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-09 20:37 ` [PATCH RFC 2/3] spmi: Add MSM PMIC Arbiter SPMI controller Josh Cartwright
2013-08-09 20:37   ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 18:52   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-16 18:52     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-09 20:37 ` [PATCH RFC 1/3] spmi: Linux driver framework for SPMI Josh Cartwright
2013-08-09 20:37   ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 18:46   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-16 18:46     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-16 19:47     ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 19:47       ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 19:47       ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 19:50       ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 19:50         ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 19:50         ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 19:58       ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-16 19:58         ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-16 19:58         ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-16 20:40         ` Josh Cartwright [this message]
2013-08-16 20:40           ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 20:40           ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 20:50           ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-16 20:50             ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-16 20:50             ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-16 18:49   ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-16 18:49     ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-16 20:21     ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 20:21       ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 20:21       ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 20:28       ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-16 20:28         ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-16 20:28         ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2013-08-16 19:04   ` Kumar Gala
2013-08-16 19:04     ` Kumar Gala
2013-08-16 19:04     ` Kumar Gala
     [not found] ` <b639088d50df93caaef8fe7e09c12953b1153ce8.1376596224.git.joshc@codeaurora.org>
     [not found]   ` <D1534646-7CB5-4EE7-8C1E-1C607BE22396@codeaurora.org>
2013-08-16 19:25     ` [PATCH RFC 3/3] spmi: document the PMIC arbiter SPMI bindings Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 19:25       ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 19:25       ` Josh Cartwright
2013-08-16 19:48       ` Kumar Gala
2013-08-16 19:48         ` Kumar Gala
2013-08-16 19:48         ` Kumar Gala
2013-08-16 23:17         ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-16 23:17           ` Stephen Warren
2013-08-16 23:17           ` Stephen Warren

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=20130816204055.GK4035@joshc.qualcomm.com \
    --to=joshc@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=gavidov@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=grant.likely@linaro.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbohan@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=rob.herring@calxeda.com \
    --cc=sdharia@codeaurora.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH RFC 1/3] spmi: Linux driver framework for SPMI' \
    /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: link

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.