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 -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
