On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 09:20:05PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 07:10:09PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 08:52:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 06:49:58PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think the ACPI dependency there is as much about hiding the device on > > > > > > > > irrelevant platforms as anything else, might be better replaced with an > > > > > > > > x86 dependency though. > > > > > Oh, oh, my bad I missed acpi_dev_uid_to_integer() call. > > > Okay, with that in mind it's functional dependency for the ACPI-based > > > platforms. Do you want to keep it untouched? > > > > That's not actually what I was thinking of (please read what I wrote > > above, like I say I was thining about hiding things) but surely if that > > was a reason to keep the dependency it'd need to be an actual ACPI > > dependency rather than an ||? > > For my knowledge there is none of the ACPI-based platform where CONFIG_ACPI > needs to be 'n' while having the real device (as per ACPI ID table) to be on. to be on --> in a sense of "to be present". > That's why I answered purely from the compilation point of view. > > Personally I see that dependency more confusing than hinting about anything. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko