All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
To: Xiao Jiang <jgq516@gmail.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>,
	linux@arm.linux.org.uk, tony@atomide.com, plagnioj@jcrosoft.com,
	nicolas.ferre@atmel.com, arnd@arndb.de, swarren@nvidia.com,
	ldewangan@nvidia.com, hdoyu@nvidia.com,
	linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: add PROC_DEVICETREE support in Kconfig
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:24:32 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOesGMjmeXVx2MR7GGux9Cztkf-C3cBqpBW1_PW75D_Gk0GHiA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAERv70uZMEoX4OcECssOrktVzC911tiSLXRH56TjyhQqVgNwBA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Xiao Jiang <jgq516@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/7/6 Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>
>>
>> On 07/06/2012 05:38 AM, jgq516@gmail.com wrote:
>> > From: Xiao Jiang <jgq516@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > Since more and more arm chips support device tree, it'd be better add
>> > PROC_DEVICETREE
>> > in arch/arm/Kconfig to avoid duplicate code.
>>
>> I think this should remain user choice. If its going to be selected,
>> then you might as well just remove the option altogether. Perhaps just
>> make the option default to yes.
>>
> Hmm, sounds reasonable from your point. So the better choice is to set the
> option default to Y if the board has dt support just like tegra_defconfig
> and at91_dt_defconfig,  right? thanks.

Why bother? If the defconfigs select it then most users basing their
config from that will be just fine.

PROC_DEVICETREE is 100% optional, it's useful to get runtime access to
the contents of the device tree but it's not required for the kernel
to boot.


-Olof

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: add PROC_DEVICETREE support in Kconfig
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2012 16:24:32 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOesGMjmeXVx2MR7GGux9Cztkf-C3cBqpBW1_PW75D_Gk0GHiA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAERv70uZMEoX4OcECssOrktVzC911tiSLXRH56TjyhQqVgNwBA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Xiao Jiang <jgq516@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/7/6 Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com>
>>
>> On 07/06/2012 05:38 AM, jgq516 at gmail.com wrote:
>> > From: Xiao Jiang <jgq516@gmail.com>
>> >
>> > Since more and more arm chips support device tree, it'd be better add
>> > PROC_DEVICETREE
>> > in arch/arm/Kconfig to avoid duplicate code.
>>
>> I think this should remain user choice. If its going to be selected,
>> then you might as well just remove the option altogether. Perhaps just
>> make the option default to yes.
>>
> Hmm, sounds reasonable from your point. So the better choice is to set the
> option default to Y if the board has dt support just like tegra_defconfig
> and at91_dt_defconfig,  right? thanks.

Why bother? If the defconfigs select it then most users basing their
config from that will be just fine.

PROC_DEVICETREE is 100% optional, it's useful to get runtime access to
the contents of the device tree but it's not required for the kernel
to boot.


-Olof

  reply	other threads:[~2012-07-06 23:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-07-06 10:38 [PATCH 1/1] ARM: add PROC_DEVICETREE support in Kconfig jgq516
2012-07-06 10:38 ` jgq516 at gmail.com
2012-07-06 10:38 ` jgq516
2012-07-06 11:28 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2012-07-06 11:28   ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2012-07-06 11:28   ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2012-07-06 12:40 ` Rob Herring
2012-07-06 12:40   ` Rob Herring
2012-07-06 23:15   ` Xiao Jiang
2012-07-06 23:15     ` Xiao Jiang
2012-07-06 23:24     ` Olof Johansson [this message]
2012-07-06 23:24       ` Olof Johansson
2012-07-07  0:10       ` Xiao Jiang
2012-07-07  0:10         ` Xiao Jiang

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=CAOesGMjmeXVx2MR7GGux9Cztkf-C3cBqpBW1_PW75D_Gk0GHiA@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=olof@lixom.net \
    --cc=arnd@arndb.de \
    --cc=hdoyu@nvidia.com \
    --cc=jgq516@gmail.com \
    --cc=ldewangan@nvidia.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=nicolas.ferre@atmel.com \
    --cc=plagnioj@jcrosoft.com \
    --cc=robherring2@gmail.com \
    --cc=swarren@nvidia.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: link
Be 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.