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

From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
	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: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 13:36:24 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YHgXKHvjnC5qzDPy@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <39f6bbed-9eea-963a-1ef1-a83248f162aa@hisilicon.com>

On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 05:04:39PM +0800, Yicong Yang wrote:
> On 2021/4/15 16:18, Yicong Yang wrote:
> > On 2021/4/15 2:06, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:24 AM Yicong Yang <yangyicong@hisilicon.com> wrote:
> >>> On 2021/4/13 20:26, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>>> The HiSilicon Kunpeng I2C controller is only present on HiSilicon
> >>>> Kunpeng SoCs, and its driver relies on ACPI to probe for its presence.
> >>>> Hence add dependencies on ARCH_HISI and ACPI, to prevent asking the user
> >>>> about this driver when configuring a kernel without Hisilicon platform
> >>>> or ACPI firmware support.
> >>>
> >>> this is a public IP which doesn't specifically depend on ARCH_HISI. I'm
> >>> not sure all the platform this IP on has ARCH_HISI configured. The driver
> >>> will not be compiled by default config. This is not correct to have
> >>> this dependence.
> >>
> >> Thanks for your answer!
> >>
> >> I guess it's still fine to add a dependency on ACPI?
> > 
> > yes. currently we only use this driver through ACPI. So at least
> > for this driver, it make sense to keep the dependency.
> > 
> 
> sorry. i was a little mess about this. I dropped this in [1].
> so just keep it as is.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-i2c/YGMntYT2iz72wgrd@smile.fi.intel.com/

If you think that ACPI dependency is good to have there, go ahead, not my
worries of the consequences. I just consider that as unneeded dependencies.

The proper fix would be to have a split in Kbuild infra for compile
dependencies and run-time dependencies.

+Cc: Masahiro for the discussion, maybe it had already taken place and there is
an impediment to do so.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko

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