Re: [PATCH] i2c: I2C_HISI should depend on ARCH_HISI && ACPI

From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	 Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>,
	Wei Xu <xuwei5@hisilicon.com>,
	 Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>,
	Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>,
	 Linux I2C <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
	 Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: I2C_HISI should depend on ARCH_HISI && ACPI
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 15:54:10 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdU5AVdq5fubt69u6cOBJR8gwi=LcmePf46yi9_1srtsGA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vcye9HPSoAkqiqnzgQ+8_SZ-W9gURWmWXd5s-y_fji5Ug@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Andy,

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 3:35 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 4:02 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:50 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:43 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:14 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.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@linux.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@hisilicon.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@linux-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

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel