On Mon, Dec 18, 2023 at 2:18 PM Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-12-18 at 12:58 +0100, Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > > Dunno, I'm not super involved with this but ... > > > +++ b/drivers/bcma/Kconfig > > @@ -1,12 +1,7 @@ > > # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > -config BCMA_POSSIBLE > > - bool > > - depends on HAS_IOMEM && HAS_DMA > > - default y > > - > > menuconfig BCMA > > tristate "Broadcom specific AMBA" > > - depends on BCMA_POSSIBLE > > + depends on HAS_IOMEM && HAS_DMA > > [...] > > config BRCMSMAC > > tristate "Broadcom IEEE802.11n PCIe SoftMAC WLAN driver" > > - depends on MAC80211 > > - depends on BCMA_POSSIBLE > > + depends on HAS_IOMEM && HAS_DMA && MAC80211 > > select BCMA > > to me it kind of seems more obvious for example in this case to say > "depend on BCMA_POSSIBLE and select BCMA" rather than open-coding the > BCMA dependencies both here and in BCMA? Now granted, they're rather > unlikely to _change_, but it still seems more obvious? > Okay, I see. Well, if that kind of pattern is the preference, then the code as-is makes sense. The pattern just starts to become obscure when the dependencies of multiple drivers are the same and we start writing "BCMA_POSSIBLE || SSB_POSSIBLE", but the dependencies are the same anyway. Let us see what others think. Lukas
