On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 04:44:33PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 4:41 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 02:48:15PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 2:37 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 02:26:15PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > The HiSilicon Kunpeng I2C controller is only present on HiSilicon > > > > > Kunpeng SoCs, and its driver relies on ACPI to probe for its presence. > > > > > Hence add dependencies on ARCH_HISI and ACPI, to prevent asking the user > > > > > about this driver when configuring a kernel without Hisilicon platform > > > > > or ACPI firmware support. > > > > > > > > I don't by the ACPI dependency, sorry. > > > > > > > > The driver is a pure platform driver that can be enumerated on ACPI enabled > > > > devices, but otherwise it can be used as a platform one. > > > > > > Sure, you can manually instantiate a platform device with a matching > > > name, and set up the "clk_rate" device property. > > > But would it make sense to do that? Would anyone ever do that? > > > > It will narrow down the possibility to have One Kernel for as many as possible > > platforms. > > That One Kernel needs to have CONFIG_ACPI enabled to use I2C on the > HiSilicon Kunpeng. If CONFIG_ACPI is disabled, it cannot be used, as there > is no other code that creates "hisi-i2c" platform devices. It is fine, but since you add a dependency to the ARCH variant, the ACPI should be added there, not here. Here is simply wrong place for this dependency as driver is *not* dependent on ACPI per se. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
