Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 21 May 2013 10:03:36 +0100 | From | Will Deacon <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arm64: kernel: need extern variable 'screen_info' for related driver using. |
| |
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
| |