Hi Joel, On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 12:51 AM Joel Stanley <joel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 12:16, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > + depends on OF && LITEX > > > > > > I don't like having litex drivers depend on the LITEX kconfig. The > > > symbol is not user visible, and to enable it we need to build in the > > > litex controller driver, which platforms may or may not have. > > > > > > The microwatt platform is an example of a SoC that embeds some LITEX > > > IP, but may or may not be a litex SoC. > > > > I do like the LITEX dependency, as it allows us to gate off a bunch of > > related drivers, and avoid annoying users with questions about them, > > using a single symbol. > > I appreciate your concern. > > We could do this: > > depends on PPC_MICROWATT || LITEX || COMPILE_TEST > > It's unfortunate that kconfig doesn't let us describe the difference > between "this driver requires this symbol" as it won't build and "this > driver is only useful when this symbol is enabled". Traditionally I > write kconfig to represent only the former, whereas you prefer both. The former is expressed using: depends on FOO The latter using: depends on BAR || COMPILE_TEST Traditionally we only had the former. But with the introduction of more and more dummy symbols for the !CONFIG_BAR case, the amount of questions asked during configuration has become overwhelming. At the current pace, we'll reach 20K config symbols by v5.24 or so... Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds