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: <CAHp75Vcye9HPSoAkqiqnzgQ+8_SZ-W9gURWmWXd5s-y_fji5Ug@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 19 Apr 2021 16:31:52 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Yicong Yang <yangyicong@...ilicon.com>,
        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 Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 4:02 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:50 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:43 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:14 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 08:55:21PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:18 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 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:

...

> > > > > > > I guess it's still fine to add a dependency on ACPI?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But why?
> > > > >
> > > > > Please tell me how/when the driver is used when CONFIG_ACPI=n.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not using it at all. Ask the author :-)
> > > >
> > > > But if we follow your logic, then we need to mark all the _platform_ drivers
> > > > for x86 world as ACPI dependent? This sounds ugly.
> > >
> > > Do all other x86 platform drivers have (1) an .acpi_match_table[] and
> > > (2) no other way of instantiating their devices?
> > > The first driver from the top of my memory I looked at is rtc-cmos:
> > > it has no .acpi_match_table[], and the rtc-cmos device is instantiated
> > > from arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c.
> > >
> > > For drivers with only an .of_match_table(), and no legacy users
> > > instantiating platform devices, we do have dependencies on OF.
> >
> > This is not true. Entire IIO subsystem is an example.
>
> Do you care to elaborate?
> Three quarters of the IIO drivers are I2C and SPI drivers, and thus not
> subject to the above.

It seems I missed that you are talking about platform device drivers.
In any case it's not true. We have the platform drivers w/o legacy
users that are not dependent on OF.
They may _indirectly_ be dependent, but this is fine as I stated above
when suggested to move ACPI dependency on ARCH_xxx level.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko