Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 5:18 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On 1/4/2024 5:01 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/pwrseq/Kconfig b/drivers/pci/pcie/pwrseq/Kconfig >> >> index 010e31f432c9..f9fe555b8506 100644 >> >> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/pwrseq/Kconfig >> >> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/pwrseq/Kconfig >> >> @@ -6,3 +6,14 @@ menuconfig PCIE_PWRSEQ >> >> help >> >> Say yes here to enable support for PCIe power sequencing >> >> drivers. >> >> + >> >> +if PCIE_PWRSEQ >> >> + >> >> +config PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390 >> >> + tristate "PCIe Power Sequencing driver for QCA6390" >> >> + depends on ARCH_QCOM || COMPILE_TEST >> >> + help >> >> + Enable support for the PCIe power sequencing driver for the >> >> + ath11k module of the QCA6390 WLAN/BT chip. >> >> + >> >> +endif >> > >> > As I mentioned in the 5/9 patch I'm concerned that the current >> > definition of PCIE_PWRSEQ and PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390 will effectively hide >> > the fact that QCA6390 may need additional configuration since the menu >> > item will only show up if you have already enabled PCIE_PWRSEQ. >> > Yes I see that these are set in the defconfig in 9/9 but I'm concerned >> > about the more generic case. >> > >> > I'm wondering if there should be a separate config QCA6390 within ath11k >> > which would then select PCIE_PWRSEQ and PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390 >> >> Or is it possible to provide an optional dependency in Kconfig (I guess > > imply PCIE_PWRSEQ > imply PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390 > ? Nice, I had forgotten imply altogether. Would 'imply PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390' in ath11k Kconfig be enough to address Jeff's concern? -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
