On 07/08/2023 10:55, Andi Shyti wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Aug 06, 2023 at 10:29:04AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 06/08/2023 00:42, Andi Shyti wrote: >>> Hi Svyatoslav, >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:36:13AM +0300, Svyatoslav Ryhel wrote: >>>> After adding support for passing temperature data from thermal sensor >>>> to MAX17040 it got dependency on CONFIG_IIO. From all defconfigs >>>> using MAX17040 only s5pv210_defconfig did not have IIO already enabled >>>> so let's enable it to avoid regression. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Svyatoslav Ryhel <clamor95@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/configs/s5pv210_defconfig | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/s5pv210_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/s5pv210_defconfig >>>> index 4c1e480b5bbd..24070ee3d43e 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/configs/s5pv210_defconfig >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/configs/s5pv210_defconfig >>>> @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ CONFIG_MMC_SDHCI_S3C_DMA=y >>>> CONFIG_RTC_CLASS=y >>>> CONFIG_RTC_DRV_MAX8998=m >>>> CONFIG_DMADEVICES=y >>>> +CONFIG_IIO=y >>>> CONFIG_PWM=y >>>> CONFIG_PWM_SAMSUNG=y >>>> CONFIG_PHY_SAMSUNG_USB2=m >>> >>> Should this patch be squashed to the previous patch? I think you >>> break bisectability for this board if you enable iio only here. >> >> The defconfig change matters less - distros don't use them - so this >> points to the fact that patchset affected the users. All existing users >> of max17040 drivers, who do not enable IIO, will have their setups broken. > > That's why I'm suggesting to squash this patch with the previous. It would not solve much. All existing users will be still broken. > > Anyway, up to you... except of this note everything looks fine in > the series. I would actually prefer not to depend on IIO, but this would require stubs for missing IIO functions. Best regards, Krzysztof
