netdev - Re: [PATCH] bcma,ssb: simplify dependency handling for bcma and ssb drivers

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]

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 14:17:59 +0100
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, 
 Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@...il.com>, "David S . Miller"
 <davem@...emloft.net>, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski
 <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Kalle Valo
 <kvalo@...nel.org>, Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>, Arend van
 Spriel <aspriel@...il.com>, Franky Lin <franky.lin@...adcom.com>, Hante
 Meuleman <hante.meuleman@...adcom.com>,  Michael Buesch <m@...s.ch>,
 linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
 b43-dev@...ts.infradead.org, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@...adcom.com, 
 SHA-cyfmac-dev-list@...ineon.com
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcma,ssb: simplify dependency handling for bcma and ssb
 drivers

On Mon, 2023-12-18 at 12:58 +0100, Lukas Bulwahn wrote:

Dunno, I'm not super involved with this but ...

> +++ b/drivers/bcma/Kconfig
> @@ -1,12 +1,7 @@
>  # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> -config BCMA_POSSIBLE
> -	bool
> -	depends on HAS_IOMEM && HAS_DMA
> -	default y
> -
>  menuconfig BCMA
>  	tristate "Broadcom specific AMBA"
> -	depends on BCMA_POSSIBLE
> +	depends on HAS_IOMEM && HAS_DMA

[...]
>  config BRCMSMAC
>  	tristate "Broadcom IEEE802.11n PCIe SoftMAC WLAN driver"
> -	depends on MAC80211
> -	depends on BCMA_POSSIBLE
> +	depends on HAS_IOMEM && HAS_DMA && MAC80211
>  	select BCMA

to me it kind of seems more obvious for example in this case to say
"depend on BCMA_POSSIBLE and select BCMA" rather than open-coding the
BCMA dependencies both here and in BCMA? Now granted, they're rather
unlikely to _change_, but it still seems more obvious?

johannes