On Wed, Sep 14, 2022, at 4:27 PM, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > It is currently possible to select "Generic platform device PATA support" > in two situations: > > - architecture allows the generic platform device PATA support and > indicates that with "select HAVE_PATA_PLATFORM". > - if the user claims to be an EXPERT by setting CONFIG_EXPERT to yes > > However, there is no use case to have Generic platform device PATA support > in a kernel build if the architecture definition, i.e., the selection of > configs by an architecture, does not support it. > > If the architecture definition is wrong, i.e., it just misses a 'select > HAVE_PATA_PLATFORM', then even an expert that configures the kernel build > should not just fix that by overruling the claimed support by an > architecture. If the architecture definition is wrong, the expert should > just provide a patch to correct the architecture definition instead---in > the end, if the user is an expert, sending a quick one-line patch should > not be an issue. > > In other words, I do not see the deeper why an expert can overrule the > architecture definition in this case, as the expert may not overrule the > config selections defined by the architecture in the large majority > ---or probably all other (modulo some mistakes)---of similar cases. > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@xxxxxxxxx> Sounds reasonable. My best guess about the intention of the EXPERT dependency is that it would be used for users with third-party board files or dts files referencing these. We can't really help users with out-of-tree boardfiles, and the external dts case would be covered by your patch 1/2. Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
