On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 05:24:51PM +0100, Duje Mihanović wrote: > On Monday, January 22, 2024 11:19:26 AM CET Daniel Thompson wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 10:26:43PM +0100, Duje Mihanović wrote: > > > diff --git a/drivers/leds/Kconfig b/drivers/leds/Kconfig > > > index 6292fddcc55c..d29b6823e7d1 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/leds/Kconfig > > > +++ b/drivers/leds/Kconfig > > > @@ -181,6 +181,9 @@ config LEDS_EL15203000 > > > > > > To compile this driver as a module, choose M here: the module > > > will be called leds-el15203000. > > > > > > +config LEDS_EXPRESSWIRE > > > + bool > > > + > > > > Shouldn't there be a "select GPIOLIB" here? It seems odd to make the > > clients responsible for the dependencies. > > > > BTW there seems to be very little consistency across the kernel between > > "depends on GPIOLIB" and "select GPIOLIB".. but select is marginally > > more popular (283 vs. 219 in the kernel I checked). > > I believe a "select" would be more appropriate here unless these backlights > should be hidden if GPIOLIB is disabled. The catch with "select" is that there > seems to be no way to throw in the "|| COMPILE_TEST" other GPIO-based > backlights have and I'm not sure what to do about that. I think the "|| COMPILE_TEST" might just be a copy 'n paste'ism (in fact I may even have been guilty off propagating it in reviews when checking for inconsistencies). AFAICT nothing will inhibit setting GPIOLIB so allyes- and allmodconfig builds will always end up with GPIOLIB enabled. If we are happy to select it then I think that is enough! Daniel.
