On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 6:12 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 6:02 PM Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2021-12-27 at 17:47 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 5:44 PM Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > In a future patch HAS_IOPORT=n will result in inb()/outb() and friends > > > > not being declared. As ACPI always uses I/O port access > > > > > > The ARM64 people may not agree with this. > > > > Maybe my wording is bad. This is my rewording of what Arnd had in his > > original mail: "The ACPI subsystem needs access to I/O ports, so that > > also gets a dependency."( > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAK8P3a0MNbx-iuzW_-=0ab6-TTZzwV-PT_6gAC1Gp5PgYyHcrA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > ). > > And my point is that on ARM64 the ACPI subsystem does not need to > access IO ports. > > It may not even need to access them on x86, but that depends on the > platform firmware in use. > > If arm64 is going to set HAS_IOPORT, then fine, but is it (and this > applies to ia64 too)? > > > > > > > > we depend on HAS_IOPORT unconditionally. > > > > > > > > Co-developed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 1 + > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > > > index cdbdf68bd98f..b57f15817ede 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > > > @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ config ARCH_SUPPORTS_ACPI > > > > menuconfig ACPI > > > > bool "ACPI (Advanced Configuration and Power Interface) Support" > > > > depends on ARCH_SUPPORTS_ACPI Besides, I'm not sure why ARCH_SUPPORTS_ACPI cannot cover this new dependency. > > > > + depends on HAS_IOPORT > > > > select PNP > > > > select NLS > > > > default y if X86 > > > > -- > > > > 2.32.0 > > > > > >
