linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] i2c: I2C_HISI should depend on ARCH

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]

Message-ID: <YHcx+QPbkTA0bv9V@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Apr 2021 21:18:33 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Wei Xu <xuwei5@...ilicon.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Linux I2C <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: I2C_HISI should depend on ARCH_HISI && ACPI

On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 08:06:18PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:24 AM Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com> wrote:
> > On 2021/4/13 20:26, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > The HiSilicon Kunpeng I2C controller is only present on HiSilicon
> > > Kunpeng SoCs, and its driver relies on ACPI to probe for its presence.
> > > Hence add dependencies on ARCH_HISI and ACPI, to prevent asking the user
> > > about this driver when configuring a kernel without Hisilicon platform
> > > or ACPI firmware support.
> >
> > this is a public IP which doesn't specifically depend on ARCH_HISI. I'm
> > not sure all the platform this IP on has ARCH_HISI configured. The driver
> > will not be compiled by default config. This is not correct to have
> > this dependence.
> 
> Thanks for your answer!
> 
> I guess it's still fine to add a dependency on ACPI?

But why?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko