Hi,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On 1/14/22 09:29, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Hi Felipe,
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 7:21 AM Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>> On Mon, Dec 6, 2021 at 4:03 PM Jarrett Schultz <jaschultzms@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Since the Surface XBL Driver does not depend on ACPI, the
>>>>> platform/surface directory as a whole no longer depends on ACPI. With
>>>>> respect to this, the ACPI dependency is moved into each config that depends
>>>>> on ACPI individually.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jarrett Schultz <jaschultz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your patch, which is now commit 272479928172edf0 ("platform:
>>>> surface: Propagate ACPI Dependency").
>>>>
>>>>> --- a/drivers/platform/surface/Kconfig
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/platform/surface/Kconfig
>>>>> @@ -5,7 +5,6 @@
>>>>>
>>>>> menuconfig SURFACE_PLATFORMS
>>>>> bool "Microsoft Surface Platform-Specific Device Drivers"
>>>>> - depends on ACPI
>>>>> default y
>>>>> help
>>>>> Say Y here to get to see options for platform-specific device drivers
>>>>
>>>> Without any dependency, all users configuring a kernel are now asked
>>>> about this. Is there any other platform dependency that can be used
>>>> instead?
>>>
>>> there's probably no symbol that would be true for x86 and arm64 while
>>> being false for everything else. Any ideas?
>>
>> depends on ARM64 || X86 || COMPILE_TEST?
>
> That sounds reasonable to me, I would be happy to take a patch for that.
fair enough, let's see what Jarrett replies
--
balbi
