On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 06:46:32PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 05:24:06PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 04:42:20PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 03:01:06PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > Currently Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore is a feature of the DW APB I2C > > > > platform driver. It's a bit confusing to see it's config in the menu at > > > > some separated place with no reference to the platform code. Let's move the > > > > config definition to be below the I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM config and mark > > > > it with "depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM" statement. By doing so the > > > > config menu will display the feature right below the DW I2C platform > > > > driver item and will indent it to the right so signifying its belonging. > > ... > > > > > config I2C_DESIGNWARE_BAYTRAIL > > > > bool "Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support" > > > > depends on ACPI > > > > + depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM > > > > depends on (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m && IOSF_MBI) || \ > > > > (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && IOSF_MBI=y) > > > > > > I didn't get this. What is broken now with existing dependencies? > > > > With no explicit "depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM" the entry isn't right > > shifted with respect to the I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM config entry in the kernel > > menuconfig. So it looks like a normal no-yes driver without it. > > I didn't get. Is there problems with current case? (I don't see it). > If there is a problem, it should have a separate patch and commit message. > > As for now above excerpt seems redundant and unneeded churn. Please read the commit log more carefully. Without explicit "depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM" you'd see the DW I2C-related menuconfig as: [*] Synopsys DesignWare Platform [ ] Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support with that "depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM" added: [*] Synopsys DesignWare Platform [ ] Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support The second case presents the Baytrail semaphore as the DW I2C platform feature. Otherwise it's just a simple menuentry. As I see it without adding the explicit "depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM" there is no need in moving the config at all. So if you think it's a churn. Well, I'll wait for Jarkko' comment in this regard. BTW Jarkko asked in v3 whether it would work with just explicit "depends on" without if-endif enclosing the config. -Sergey > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > >
