On 2/16/2023 14:59, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 02:55:07PM -0600, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
On 2/16/2023 08:56, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 07:29:53AM -0600, Mario Limonciello wrote:
On 2/16/23 07:27, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
On 2/10/23 00:38, Mario Limonciello wrote:
...
config I2C_DESIGNWARE_AMDPSP
bool "AMD PSP I2C semaphore support"
- depends on X86_MSR
depends on ACPI
depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM
+ depends on CRYPTO_DEV_SP_PSP && !(I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y &&
CRYPTO_DEV_CCP_DD=m)
help
Would this look better if split? I.e.
depends on CRYPTO_DEV_SP_PSP
depends on !(I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && CRYPTO_DEV_CCP_DD=m)
Yes, thanks I'll change that for next version.
I'm wondering if this is homegrown implementation of 'imply' keyword?
Like this?
config I2C_DESIGNWARE_AMDPSP
depends on CRYPTO_DEV_SP_PSP
depends on CRYPTO_DEV_CCP_DD
config CRYPTO_DEV_CCP_DD
imply I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM
Looks okay, but I'm not familiar with this code. The documentation about
'imply' can be found here:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/kbuild/kconfig-language.html#menu-attributes
Yeah I found that, but this was my first time using imply, so I was
hoping someone who has used it could validate I interpreted it correctly.
Following the example CRYPTO_DEV_CCP_DD would be FOO and
I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM would be BAZ so I thought so.
