linux-kernel - Re: [RFC v2 5/5] clk: socfpga: allow compile testing of Stratix 10 / Agilex clocks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 11 Mar 2021 08:29:42 +0100
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@...nel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        Moritz Fischer <mdf@...nel.org>, Tom Rix <trix@...hat.com>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-fpga@...r.kernel.org,
        Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com, arm-soc <arm@...nel.org>,
        SoC Team <soc@...nel.org>, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 5/5] clk: socfpga: allow compile testing of Stratix 10 /
 Agilex clocks

On 10/03/2021 17:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 9:38 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com> wrote:
>> --- a/drivers/clk/socfpga/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/socfpga/Kconfig
>> @@ -1,6 +1,17 @@
>>  # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>> +config COMMON_CLK_SOCFPGA
>> +       bool "Intel SoCFPGA family clock support" if COMPILE_TEST && !ARCH_SOCFPGA && !ARCH_SOCFPGA64
>> +       depends on ARCH_SOCFPGA || ARCH_SOCFPGA64 || COMPILE_TEST
>> +       default y if ARCH_SOCFPGA || ARCH_SOCFPGA64
> 
> I think the 'depends on' line here is redundant if you also have the
> 'if' line and the default.

Yes, you're right.
Best regards,
Krzysztof