On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 03:16:14PM +0300, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > On 5/10/20 12:50 PM, Serge Semin wrote: > > Currently Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore is a feature of the DW APB I2C > > platform driver. It's a bit confusing to see it's config in the menu at > > some separated place with no reference to the platform code. Lets move the > > config definition under the if-I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM clause. By doing so > > the config menu will display the feature right below the DW I2C platform > > driver item and will indent it to the right so signifying its belonging. > > > > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Paul Burton <paulburton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > --- > > drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 30 +++++++++++++++++------------- > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig > > index 368aa64e9266..ed6927c4c540 100644 > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig > > @@ -530,8 +530,8 @@ config I2C_DESIGNWARE_CORE > > config I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM > > tristate "Synopsys DesignWare Platform" > > - select I2C_DESIGNWARE_CORE > > depends on (ACPI && COMMON_CLK) || !ACPI > > + select I2C_DESIGNWARE_CORE > > help > > If you say yes to this option, support will be included for the > > Synopsys DesignWare I2C adapter. > > @@ -539,6 +539,22 @@ config I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM > > This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module > > will be called i2c-designware-platform. > > +if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM > > + > > +config I2C_DESIGNWARE_BAYTRAIL > > + bool "Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support" > > + depends on ACPI > > + depends on (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m && IOSF_MBI) || \ > > + (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && IOSF_MBI=y) > > + help > > + This driver enables managed host access to the PMIC I2C bus on select > > + Intel BayTrail platforms using the X-Powers AXP288 PMIC. It allows > > + the host to request uninterrupted access to the PMIC's I2C bus from > > + the platform firmware controlling it. You should say Y if running on > > + a BayTrail system using the AXP288. > > + > > +endif # I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM > > + > > Is the added "if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM" needed here? Should the "depends > on" be enough? The idea was to add if-endif clause here for features possibly added sometime in future. But using normal "depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM" shall make the config depicted as an indented sub-config as well. Would you like me to remove the if-clause and use the depends on operator instead? -Sergey > > Jarkko
