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: <CA+HBbNHcO=NintKBz8CmYRruiuHM8EFU+wQjw0-JbGKMK2xv2g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 22:12:48 +0200
From: Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>
To: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
Cc: linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	daniel.machon@...rochip.com, luka.perkov@...tura.hr, 
	benjamin.ryzman@...onical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hwmon: sparx5: make it selectable for ARCH_MICROCHIP

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 5:33 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 11:15:52AM +0200, Robert Marko wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 12:07 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Hi Guenter,
> > I should have extended the description a bit.
> >
> > LAN969x uses the same sensor as SparX-5, and they both select ARCH_MICROCHIP so
> > SparX-5 only configs can still select this driver.
>
> You mean ARCH_LAN969X (in contrast to ARCH_SPARX5 and LAN969X_SWITCH) ?

Both ARCH_LAN969X (Which is now in linux-next) and ARCH_SPARX5 select
ARCH_MICROCHIP
which was introduced to avoid the need to keep adding new ARCH symbols
to individual drivers.

LAN969X_SWITCH is just the switchdev driver for ARCH_LAN969X.

> That makes sense, but it really needs to be explained in the patch
> description. Also, since ARCH_MICROCHIP does not exist for arm64 in the
> upstream kernel, a note that this depends on other patches in linux-next
> would have been helpful. You may know that, and others may know that, but
> I don't, and digging through that cost me at least an hour of time which
> I don't have.

Yes, I should have pointed out that this depends on linux-next since
the prerequisite
Kconfig.platforms change for ARM64 is in linux-next, but it should
land in the regular ARM tree
if its not already there.

If there is need for a v2, I will make sure to expand the description.
Sorry for the confusion.

Regards,
Robert
>
> Guenter



-- 
Robert Marko
Staff Embedded Linux Engineer
Sartura d.d.
Lendavska ulica 16a
10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Email: robert.marko@...tura.hr
Web: www.sartura.hr