[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdU5AVdq5fubt69u6cOBJR8gwi=LcmePf46yi9_1srtsGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 15:54:10 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
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
Hi Andy,
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 3:35 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> 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.
OK.
> In any case it's not true. We have the platform drivers w/o legacy
> users that are not dependent on OF.
Example? ;-)
> They may _indirectly_ be dependent, but this is fine as I stated above
> when suggested to move ACPI dependency on ARCH_xxx level.
As per the response from the driver maintainer
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/bd8db435-24e1-5ab3-6b35-1d4d8a292a7e@hisilicon.com/,
there is no dependency on ARCH_HISI, so moving the ACPI dependency
up won't help.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists