Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1288051 > unrolled thread

[PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular drivers

Started byPaul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
First post2015-12-10 00:30 +0100
Last post2015-12-10 10:10 +0100
Articles 5 — 3 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel


Contents

  [PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular drivers Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> - 2015-12-10 00:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular drivers Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2015-12-10 00:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular  drivers Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> - 2015-12-10 01:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular  drivers Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com> - 2015-12-10 04:10 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular drivers Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2015-12-10 10:10 +0100

#1288051 — [PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular drivers

FromPaul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Date2015-12-10 00:30 +0100
Subject[PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular drivers
Message-ID<qDWlk-6vk-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
This series of commits is a slice of a larger project to ensure
people don't have dead code for module removal in non-modular
drivers.  Overall there is roughly 5k lines of dead code in the
kernel due to this.

There is a quasi-separate theme, in that some of the drivers were
allowing an unbind implicitly since it is enabled by default.  But
for core DMA infrastructure drivers, this doesn't seem useful -- so
we also disable that here which allows us to delete any ".remove"
functions from the drivers that would otherwise be called during the
(impossible to trigger) module removal.

Since ARM covers these files the best of all architectures, each
file was build tested for allmodconfig on ARM, which at the same
time confirms that the files are not built with "CC [M]" -- hence
genuinely non-modular.

My testing and the larger patch series in general has been done
against the latest linux-next tree.

Paul.
---

Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Mack <daniel@zonque.org>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc: Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@gmail.com>
Cc: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>
Cc: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Cc: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
Cc: dmaengine@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org


Paul Gortmaker (6):
  drivers/dma: make edma.c explicitly non-modular
  drivers/dma: make mmp_pdma.c explicitly non-modular
  drivers/dma: make mmp_tdma.c explicitly non-modular
  drivers/dma: make pxa_dma.c explicitly non-modular
  drivers/dma: make sh/shdma-*.c explicitly non-modular
  drivers/dma: make tegra20-apb-dma.c explicitly non-modular

 drivers/dma/edma.c            | 37 ++++++-------------------------------
 drivers/dma/mmp_pdma.c        | 21 ++++-----------------
 drivers/dma/mmp_tdma.c        | 22 +++-------------------
 drivers/dma/pxa_dma.c         | 38 +++-----------------------------------
 drivers/dma/sh/shdma-base.c   | 14 ++------------
 drivers/dma/sh/shdma-of.c     | 11 +++--------
 drivers/dma/tegra20-apb-dma.c | 35 ++++-------------------------------
 7 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 153 deletions(-)

-- 
2.6.1


Paul Gortmaker (6):
  drivers/dma: make edma.c explicitly non-modular
  drivers/dma: make mmp_pdma.c explicitly non-modular
  drivers/dma: make mmp_tdma.c explicitly non-modular
  drivers/dma: make pxa_dma.c explicitly non-modular
  drivers/dma: make sh/shdma-*.c explicitly non-modular
  drivers/dma: make tegra20-apb-dma.c explicitly non-modular

 drivers/dma/edma.c            | 37 ++++++-------------------------------
 drivers/dma/mmp_pdma.c        | 21 ++++-----------------
 drivers/dma/mmp_tdma.c        | 22 +++-------------------
 drivers/dma/pxa_dma.c         | 38 +++-----------------------------------
 drivers/dma/sh/shdma-base.c   | 14 ++------------
 drivers/dma/sh/shdma-of.c     | 11 +++--------
 drivers/dma/tegra20-apb-dma.c | 35 ++++-------------------------------
 7 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 153 deletions(-)

-- 
2.6.1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1288057

FromArnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date2015-12-10 00:40 +0100
Message-ID<qDWv0-6yV-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1288051
On Wednesday 09 December 2015 18:21:56 Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> This series of commits is a slice of a larger project to ensure
> people don't have dead code for module removal in non-modular
> drivers.  Overall there is roughly 5k lines of dead code in the
> kernel due to this.
> 
> There is a quasi-separate theme, in that some of the drivers were
> allowing an unbind implicitly since it is enabled by default.  But
> for core DMA infrastructure drivers, this doesn't seem useful -- so
> we also disable that here which allows us to delete any ".remove"
> functions from the drivers that would otherwise be called during the
> (impossible to trigger) module removal.
> 
> Since ARM covers these files the best of all architectures, each
> file was build tested for allmodconfig on ARM, which at the same
> time confirms that the files are not built with "CC [M]" -- hence
> genuinely non-modular.
> 
> My testing and the larger patch series in general has been done
> against the latest linux-next tree.
> 
> 

We are in the process of changing the DMA drivers to a new way of
passing the "filter" function around. We can soon build them
all as loadable modules again.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1288081 — Re: [PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular drivers

FromPaul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Date2015-12-10 01:30 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular drivers
Message-ID<qDXho-76y-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1288057
[Re: [PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular drivers] On 10/12/2015 (Thu 00:29) Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Wednesday 09 December 2015 18:21:56 Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > This series of commits is a slice of a larger project to ensure
> > people don't have dead code for module removal in non-modular
> > drivers.  Overall there is roughly 5k lines of dead code in the
> > kernel due to this.
> > 
> > There is a quasi-separate theme, in that some of the drivers were
> > allowing an unbind implicitly since it is enabled by default.  But
> > for core DMA infrastructure drivers, this doesn't seem useful -- so
> > we also disable that here which allows us to delete any ".remove"
> > functions from the drivers that would otherwise be called during the
> > (impossible to trigger) module removal.
> > 
> > Since ARM covers these files the best of all architectures, each
> > file was build tested for allmodconfig on ARM, which at the same
> > time confirms that the files are not built with "CC [M]" -- hence
> > genuinely non-modular.
> > 
> > My testing and the larger patch series in general has been done
> > against the latest linux-next tree.
> > 
> > 
> 
> We are in the process of changing the DMA drivers to a new way of
> passing the "filter" function around. We can soon build them
> all as loadable modules again.

Hi Arnd,

Thanks for the feedback -- just to clarify, you are suggesting I hold
on the series until I see what emerges in the next merge window?

Paul.
--

> 
> 	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1288159 — Re: [PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular drivers

FromVinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
Date2015-12-10 04:10 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular drivers
Message-ID<qDZMd-kn-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1288081
On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 07:17:42PM -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Re: [PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular drivers] On 10/12/2015 (Thu 00:29) Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday 09 December 2015 18:21:56 Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > > This series of commits is a slice of a larger project to ensure
> > > people don't have dead code for module removal in non-modular
> > > drivers.  Overall there is roughly 5k lines of dead code in the
> > > kernel due to this.
> > > 
> > > There is a quasi-separate theme, in that some of the drivers were
> > > allowing an unbind implicitly since it is enabled by default.  But
> > > for core DMA infrastructure drivers, this doesn't seem useful -- so
> > > we also disable that here which allows us to delete any ".remove"
> > > functions from the drivers that would otherwise be called during the
> > > (impossible to trigger) module removal.
> > > 
> > > Since ARM covers these files the best of all architectures, each
> > > file was build tested for allmodconfig on ARM, which at the same
> > > time confirms that the files are not built with "CC [M]" -- hence
> > > genuinely non-modular.
> > > 
> > > My testing and the larger patch series in general has been done
> > > against the latest linux-next tree.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > We are in the process of changing the DMA drivers to a new way of
> > passing the "filter" function around. We can soon build them
> > all as loadable modules again.
> 
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback -- just to clarify, you are suggesting I hold
> on the series until I see what emerges in the next merge window?

Yes, with this we should be able to have loadable modules for *most* so we
may not require this

Thanks
-- 
~Vinod
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1288375

FromArnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date2015-12-10 10:10 +0100
Message-ID<qE5oC-47J-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1288081
On Wednesday 09 December 2015 19:17:42 Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Re: [PATCH 0/6] drivers/dma: drop modular code from non modular drivers] On 10/12/2015 (Thu 00:29) Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday 09 December 2015 18:21:56 Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > > This series of commits is a slice of a larger project to ensure
> > > people don't have dead code for module removal in non-modular
> > > drivers.  Overall there is roughly 5k lines of dead code in the
> > > kernel due to this.
> > > 
> > > There is a quasi-separate theme, in that some of the drivers were
> > > allowing an unbind implicitly since it is enabled by default.  But
> > > for core DMA infrastructure drivers, this doesn't seem useful -- so
> > > we also disable that here which allows us to delete any ".remove"
> > > functions from the drivers that would otherwise be called during the
> > > (impossible to trigger) module removal.
> > > 
> > > Since ARM covers these files the best of all architectures, each
> > > file was build tested for allmodconfig on ARM, which at the same
> > > time confirms that the files are not built with "CC [M]" -- hence
> > > genuinely non-modular.
> > > 
> > > My testing and the larger patch series in general has been done
> > > against the latest linux-next tree.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > We are in the process of changing the DMA drivers to a new way of
> > passing the "filter" function around. We can soon build them
> > all as loadable modules again.
> 
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback -- just to clarify, you are suggesting I hold
> on the series until I see what emerges in the next merge window?
> 
> 

It may take a few cycles, but I think we'll get there and should not
remove the unload logic from any of these drivers. When we're done,
there is no reason for a dmaengine driver to be built-in.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web