On Tue, Jan 9, 2024, at 11:26, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 6:15 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024, at 11:09, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> > Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 5:18 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> If this is indeed what you want, it's still better to do the
>> equivalent expression in PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390 rather than ATH11K:
>>
>> config PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390
>> tristate "PCIe Power Sequencing driver for QCA6390"
>> default ATH11K && ARCH_QCOM
>
> PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390 is also guarded by PCIE_PWRSEQ though. That would
> require the default statement to be duplicated to the PCIE_PWRSEQ option
> as well.
>
> Presumably we'd get a few more power sequencing drivers, and the list of
> default statements for PCIE_PWRSEQ would grow.
>
> If that's acceptable then Arnd's proposal plus duplicating it to
> PCIE_PWRSEQ should work as described.
Does PCIE_PWRSEQ need to be user-visible? If this is a hidden symbol
that gets selected by PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390 and any future ones, it
would still get enabled.
Another possibility would be to have PCIE_PWRSEQ be default-enabled,
but allow it to be turned off in order to hide the other options
when users are sure they don't need it (e.g. when building a
specialized kernel for a particular board).
Arnd
