On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 11:57:31AM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 22:32:51 +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 08:39:19PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 04:02:34PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > Is there a reason why config TPS68470_PMIC_OPREGION is not under "if > > > > PMIC_OPREGION" where all other *_PMIC_OPREGION driver options are? > > > > > > It was originally like that. > > > > > > Sakari, do you know? > > > > The answer can be found in Makefile: > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_PMIC_OPREGION) += intel_pmic.o > > > > intel_pmic.c seems to contain common functionality for PMICs in Intel SoCs > > whereas the TPS68470 is an external chip. The two codebases are distinct. > > > > Perhaps it could make sense to either rename this as > > CONFIG_PMIC_INTEL_OPREGION, or move the TPS68470 driver in and change the > > Kconfig+Makefile to have the common code compiled if at least one of the > > drivers is enabled. > > OK, thanks for the explanation I get it now. Yes, the fact that the > menu looks vendor-neutral while it is about Intel drivers only is > confusing. Renaming it would help. I'm not sure about your alternative > proposal as I can't actually see any common code or dependency between > intel_pmic and tps68470_pmic. > > What about the following? LGTM, Acked-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
