From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753968AbbHOP6t (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Aug 2015 11:58:49 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:56849 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752397AbbHOP6s (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Aug 2015 11:58:48 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2015 17:58:46 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Dan Williams Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Boaz Harrosh , Rik van Riel , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , david , Ingo Molnar , Linux MM , Mel Gorman , Ross Zwisler , "torvalds@linux-foundation.org" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/7] libnvdimm, e820: make CONFIG_X86_PMEM_LEGACY a tristate option Message-ID: <20150815155846.GA26248@lst.de> References: <20150813031253.36913.29580.stgit@otcpl-skl-sds-2.jf.intel.com> <20150813035028.36913.25267.stgit@otcpl-skl-sds-2.jf.intel.com> <20150815090635.GF21033@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 08:28:35AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > I'm not grokking the argument against allowing this functionality to > be modular. You're adding a another layer of platform_devices just to make a tivially small piece of code modular so that you can hook into it. I don't think that's a good reason, and neither is the after thought of preventing potentially future buggy firmware.