linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hwmon: sparx5: make it selectable for 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: <f019dcef-afdd-4d18-b28c-b214fa14f1c8@roeck-us.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 15:06:58 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.machon@...rochip.com
Cc: luka.perkov@...tura.hr, benjamin.ryzman@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: sparx5: make it selectable for ARCH_MICROCHIP

On 9/24/25 14:30, Robert Marko wrote:
> LAN969x uses the same sensor and driver, so make it selectable for
> ARCH_MICROCHIP.
> 
LAN969x _is_ the Ethernet switch driver for Sparx5, so this description does
not really make sense. Same as what ? Itself ?

> Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>
> ---
>   drivers/hwmon/Kconfig | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig b/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
> index 840d998f850a..ba2b7b2f6c44 100644
> --- a/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
> @@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ config SENSORS_I5K_AMB
>   
>   config SENSORS_SPARX5
>   	tristate "Sparx5 SoC temperature sensor"
> -	depends on ARCH_SPARX5 || COMPILE_TEST
> +	depends on ARCH_MICROCHIP || COMPILE_TEST

... and silently disable it for ARCH_SPARX5 at the same time ? That is not what
the description says, and is completely unacceptable unless explained.

>   	help
>   	  If you say yes here you get support for temperature monitoring
>   	  with the Microchip Sparx5 SoC.

... and, on top of all that, still claim to support Sparx5 even that is
no longer the case.

Ah, I see, this patch depends on patches in linux-next. You might want to say that.
Also, there is context missing: If the sensor is _only_ supported on Sparx5
(which everything but the dependency suggests), it does not make sense to extend
the dependencies. Why make the sensor configurable for _all_ microchip architectures
if it is only supported on Sparx5 ? Maybe there is some other series explaining
this, but this patch is all I got and it does not explain anything. It is only
confusing and does not make sense on its own.

Guenter