On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 4:54 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 3:35 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 4:02 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:50 AM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:43 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:14 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 08:55:21PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:18 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > > > > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 08:06:18PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:24 AM Yicong Yang <yangyicong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > I guess it's still fine to add a dependency on ACPI? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But why? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please tell me how/when the driver is used when CONFIG_ACPI=n. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not using it at all. Ask the author :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > But if we follow your logic, then we need to mark all the _platform_ drivers > > > > > > for x86 world as ACPI dependent? This sounds ugly. > > > > > > > > > > Do all other x86 platform drivers have (1) an .acpi_match_table[] and > > > > > (2) no other way of instantiating their devices? > > > > > The first driver from the top of my memory I looked at is rtc-cmos: > > > > > it has no .acpi_match_table[], and the rtc-cmos device is instantiated > > > > > from arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c. > > > > > > > > > > For drivers with only an .of_match_table(), and no legacy users > > > > > instantiating platform devices, we do have dependencies on OF. > > > > > > > > This is not true. Entire IIO subsystem is an example. > > > > > > Do you care to elaborate? > > > Three quarters of the IIO drivers are I2C and SPI drivers, and thus not > > > subject to the above. > > > > It seems I missed that you are talking about platform device drivers. > > OK. > > > In any case it's not true. We have the platform drivers w/o legacy > > users that are not dependent on OF. > > Example? ;-) i2c-owl.c > > They may _indirectly_ be dependent, but this is fine as I stated above > > when suggested to move ACPI dependency on ARCH_xxx level. > > As per the response from the driver maintainer > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/bd8db435-24e1-5ab3-6b35-1d4d8a292a7e@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/, > there is no dependency on ARCH_HISI, so moving the ACPI dependency > up won't help. So, an ACPI dependency is simply not applicable here as it's a compile dependency as well, which is not a limitation for this driver. Again, talk to Masahiro how to handle this, but I don't see any good justification to have ACPI (compile time) dependency here. So, again NAK! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
