Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] gpio: elkhartlake: depend on MFD_INTEL_EHL_PSE_GPIO

[Raag Jadav <raag.jadav@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 04:00:01PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 11:19:28AM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 08:32:51PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 07:03:01PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 01:00:35PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 08:37:26AM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 10:52:28AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote:
> > > > > > > Now that we have Intel MFD driver for PSE GPIO, depend on it.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Andy, any guidance on GPIO?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm not sure what we are waiting here from me. Hadn't I reviewed your GPIO
> > > > > part already?
> > > > 
> > > > Ah, I added MFD dependency for leaf drivers after your v1 review.
> > > > So this one seems missing the tag. Can I add it?
> > > 
> > > I see, but this can be added later on.
> > > And on the second thought, do we accept the configurations
> > > when user wants to have GPIO on EHL, and doesn't care about TIO?
> > 
> > Yes, here we're making the leaf driver (GPIO) depend on MFD regardless
> > of what TIO config is.
> > 
> > > Maybe this patch is not needed after all?
> > 
> > My understanding is that GPIO should depend on MFD. Not much point in
> > adding a standalone leaf driver right?
> 
> Ah, indeed, we have no other means to enumerate it (as we don't have any board
> file that does direct creation of the device), this patch is correct.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Awesome.

I'm guessing this series will only apply on Greg's tree due to TIO stuff.
If I'd rather need to route it any other way, please let me know.

Raag