On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 5:18 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On 1/4/2024 5:01 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/pwrseq/Kconfig b/drivers/pci/pcie/pwrseq/Kconfig > >> index 010e31f432c9..f9fe555b8506 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/pwrseq/Kconfig > >> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/pwrseq/Kconfig > >> @@ -6,3 +6,14 @@ menuconfig PCIE_PWRSEQ > >> help > >> Say yes here to enable support for PCIe power sequencing > >> drivers. > >> + > >> +if PCIE_PWRSEQ > >> + > >> +config PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390 > >> + tristate "PCIe Power Sequencing driver for QCA6390" > >> + depends on ARCH_QCOM || COMPILE_TEST > >> + help > >> + Enable support for the PCIe power sequencing driver for the > >> + ath11k module of the QCA6390 WLAN/BT chip. > >> + > >> +endif > > > > As I mentioned in the 5/9 patch I'm concerned that the current > > definition of PCIE_PWRSEQ and PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390 will effectively hide > > the fact that QCA6390 may need additional configuration since the menu > > item will only show up if you have already enabled PCIE_PWRSEQ. > > Yes I see that these are set in the defconfig in 9/9 but I'm concerned > > about the more generic case. > > > > I'm wondering if there should be a separate config QCA6390 within ath11k > > which would then select PCIE_PWRSEQ and PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390 > > Or is it possible to provide an optional dependency in Kconfig (I guess imply PCIE_PWRSEQ imply PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390 ? > not)? Or what about mentioning about PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390 in ATH11K_PCI > help text?
