Messages in this thread | | | From | Masahiro Yamada <> | Date | Thu, 25 Aug 2016 11:43:31 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/10] reset: ath79: add driver Kconfig option |
| |
2016-08-25 5:06 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 3:18:55 AM CEST Masahiro Yamada wrote: >> Hi Arnd, >> >> >> 2016-08-25 0:51 GMT+09:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>: >> > On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 3:28:53 PM CEST Philipp Zabel wrote: >> >> if RESET_CONTROLLER >> >> >> >> +config RESET_ATH79 >> >> + bool "AR71xx Reset Driver" if COMPILE_TEST >> >> + default ATH79 >> >> + help >> >> + This enables the ATH79 reset controller driver that supports the >> >> + AR71xx SoC reset controller. >> >> + >> >> >> > >> > Nice series! >> > >> > Just note that there is one possible problem with COMPILE_TEST >> > when the platforms are enabled, as you can then disable a driver >> > that is normally there, and that can in turn cause problems in >> > rare cases, e.g. when the driver has a global function that is >> > called from platform code. I don't know if any of the drivers >> > do that, but if they do, you'd have to use >> > >> > config RESET_ATH79 >> > bool "AR71xx Reset Driver" if COMPILE_TEST && !ATH79 >> > default ATH79 >> > >> > to ensure that it's impossible to disable the driver on platforms >> > that require it. >> >> Hmm, >> Can we do this only when we really have to do so? >> I think we should not care about such a rare case that may not happen. >> >> Let's start with only "if COMPILE_TEST", >> and take a look at it if a build error is detected. >> >> Anyway, depending on platform code is a sign of weird implementation. >> >> It might be better to find a potential issue rather than hide it. >> >> >> > > I just checked the object files in an allyesconfig build and found > one instance: > > arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sunxi.c:extern void __init sun6i_reset_init(void); > arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sunxi.c: sun6i_reset_init(); > drivers/reset/reset-sunxi.c:void __init sun6i_reset_init(void) > > We should definitely make sure this one is handled right, and maybe > check the source code for other instances.
Hmm.
Is is solved with RESET_OF_DECLARE(), like we have CLK_OF_DECLARE() ?
Or, use something like postcore_initcall() to probe it really early? Not sure...
-- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
| |