On Fri, 2 Dec 2022 19:52:41 -0600 Samuel Holland <samuel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi Samuel, > On 12/2/22 18:14, Andre Przywara wrote: > > On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 13:13:15 -0600 > > Samuel Holland <samuel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > thanks for addressing this! > > > >> SUNXI_CCU already depends on ARCH_SUNXI, so adding the dependency to > >> individual SoC drivers is redundant. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <samuel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> > >> drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig | 43 ++++++++++++++++++------------------ > >> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig > >> index 461537679c04..64cfa022e320 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig > >> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig > >> @@ -14,43 +14,43 @@ config SUNIV_F1C100S_CCU > >> > >> config SUN20I_D1_CCU > >> tristate "Support for the Allwinner D1 CCU" > >> - default RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI > >> - depends on (RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST > >> + default RISCV > >> + depends on RISCV || COMPILE_TEST > > > > I agree on the "depends" part: Indeed the guard symbol already covers > > that, so it's redundant. > > However I am not so sure about the "default" part: When ARCH_SUNXI is > > deselected, but COMPILE_TEST in enabled, we default to every CCU driver > > being built-in. I am not sure this is the intention, or at least > > expected when doing compile testing? > > SUNXI_CCU, which these depend on, is still "default ARCH_SUNXI", so if > you have ARCH_SUNXI disabled, you only get any drivers if you manually > enable SUNXI_CCU. I mentioned this in the patch 2 description, but maybe > I should move that comment here. Yeah, I read this later on, I guess it's fine then. > > >> > >> config SUN20I_D1_R_CCU > >> tristate "Support for the Allwinner D1 PRCM CCU" > >> - default RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI > >> - depends on (RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST > >> + default RISCV > >> + depends on RISCV || COMPILE_TEST > >> > >> config SUN50I_A64_CCU > >> tristate "Support for the Allwinner A64 CCU" > >> - default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI > >> - depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST > >> + default ARM64 > >> + depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST > > > > I wonder if this "depends" line was always wrong and should be fixed: > > We can compile a 32-bit ARM kernel and run it on an A64. Granted this > > requires a special bootloader or a hacked U-Boot (tried that), and > > reveals some other issues with the decompressor, but technically there > > is no 64-bit dependency in here. > > The same goes for all the other ARM64 CCUs: Cortex-A53s can run AArch32 > > in all exception levels. > > I was trying to simplify things by hiding irrelevant options, and you > bring up an edge case of an edge case. :) I am okay with relaxing the > dependency, though I would want to leave them disabled by default for > 32-bit kernels (excluding them from the change in patch 2). Yes, definitely, that was the idea. And sorry for being a nuisance, but I think this "depends on ARCH_SUNXI" here is and was always misplaced. In contrast to things like "depends on PCI" or "depends on GPIOLIB", there is no real dependency on ARCH_SUNXI or even ARM/RISCV here, it's more a "only useful on ARCH_SUNXI". And this ARM vs ARM64 was just another rationale for not being overzealous with the dependency. But I see that this is an orthogonal discussion to this patch, so this should not block it. I will meditate over both patches again, since I have the gut feeling that the end result is fine. Cheers, Andre > > > So shall we just completely remove the "depends" line for those, and > > let SUNXI_CCU do that job? Or use use !RISCV || COMPILE_TEST? > > That, or we could add MACH_SUN8I to the condition. I don't have a strong > opinion. > > Regards, > Samuel >
