Re: [PATCH v2 37/47] clk: mediatek: Split MT8195 clock drivers and allow module build
From: Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org>
Date: 2023-02-17 15:16:30
Also in:
linux-clk, linux-mediatek, lkml
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 7:29 PM AngeloGioacchino Del Regno [off-list ref] wrote:
Il 17/02/23 05:31, Chen-Yu Tsai ha scritto:quoted
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 9:42 PM AngeloGioacchino Del Regno [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
MT8195 clock drivers were encapsulated in one single (and big) Kconfig option: there's no reason to do that, as it is totally unnecessary to build in all or none of them. Split them out: keep boot-critical clocks as bool and allow choosing non critical clocks as tristate. Signed-off-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com> --- drivers/clk/mediatek/Kconfig | 86 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/clk/mediatek/Makefile | 20 +++++--- 2 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/clk/mediatek/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/mediatek/Kconfig index 45b7aea7648d..88937d111e98 100644 --- a/drivers/clk/mediatek/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/clk/mediatek/Kconfig@@ -692,6 +692,92 @@ config COMMON_CLK_MT8195 help This driver supports MediaTek MT8195 clocks. +config COMMON_CLK_MT8195_APUSYS + tristate "Clock driver for MediaTek MT8195 apusys" + depends on COMMON_CLK_MT8195Would something like default COMMON_CLK_MT8195 help with the transition? Otherwise we'd need to add a whole lot more stuff to arm64's defconfig, and anyone running `make olddefconfig` would have many of their clock drivers no longer available. Same applies to the MT8186 split. Seems like not all MediaTek SoCs apply this pattern, but at least MT7986, MT8167, MT8173, MT8183 do this. ChenYuRight. Since MT8195 machines have been out in the wild for a bit of time now, I think it's worth following your advice and add `default COMMON_CLK_MT8195` to the new configuration options. As for MT8186, currently, there's only one board supported upstream, which is the "unobtainable" EVB so I would rather not do that for MT8186, unless you have any strong opinions on that.
I'd like something that provides a reasonable working machine if possible. If people need to customize to shrink their kernel, they could disable the options later on. At least for ChromeOS we'll probably start off with them all built-in, and later on maybe experiment a bit with modules. ChenYu _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel