Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 24 January 2025 12:42
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] watchdog: Make RZV2HWDT driver depend on ARCH_R9A09G47
>
> On 24/01/2025 11:57, Biju Das wrote:
> > Hi Krzysztof Kozlowski,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: 24 January 2025 10:35
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] watchdog: Make RZV2HWDT driver depend on
> >> ARCH_R9A09G47
> >>
> >> On 24/01/2025 11:20, Biju Das wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> + depends on ARCH_R9A09G047 || ARCH_R9A09G057 || COMPILE_TEST
> >>>>
> >>>> But this is just wrong. You are supposed to depend on renesas ARHC,
> >>>> not your individual SoC (and this is what you called here "ARCH_R9A...").
> >>>>
> >>>> Greg many times gave strong opinion that even full ARCH is wrong
> >>>> and we managed to convince him that it has a meaning (or he did not
> >>>> want to keep discussing). But restricting it per soc is pointless
> >>>> and impossible to defend in
> >> discussion.
> >>>
> >>> Currently for building RZ/G3E WDT, I need to always have RZ/V2H SoC config.
> >>> which is pointless. May be ARCH_RENESAS should ok in this case??
> >> Assuming ARCH_RENESAS covers your individual SoCs above, yes, that's
> >> the way for driver to limit themselves to usable family.
> >
> > ARCH_RENESAS has ARM, ARM64 and RISC based SoCs.
> >
> > Currently it covers ARCH_RCAR_GEN1, ARCH_RCAR_GEN2, ARCH_RCAR_GEN3,
> > ARCH_RCAR_GEN4, ARCH_RMOBILE, ARCH_RZG2L, ARCH_RZN1 Family SOCs and
> > rest of the individual SoCs such as RZ/V2H abnd RZ/g3E.
>
>
> Rather tell me why this is supposed to be different than other vendors?
It is not different from other vendors.
See, for eg:
config S3C2410_WATCHDOG
557 tristate "S3C6410/S5Pv210/Exynos Watchdog"
558 depends on ARCH_S3C64XX || ARCH_S5PV210 || ARCH_EXYNOS || COMPILE_TEST
575 config SA1100_WATCHDOG
576 tristate "SA1100/PXA2xx watchdog"
577 depends on ARCH_SA1100 || ARCH_PXA || COMPILE_TEST
and many more.
>
> || ARM64 is already used solution
If you are correct, then all should depend on either on ARM or ARM64 or RISCV etc...
>
> >
> > Since most of IP's in RZ/V2H and RZ/G3E are identical we could
> > introduce a new family SoC ARCH_RZG3E_RZV2H to cover both or top level ARCH_RENESAS??
>
> You should not write drivers per SoCs (or even two or there SoCs) and there is really no need to
> restrict them per each SoC.
If I am not wrong, The watchdog subsystem uses similar approach.
>
> Otherwise come with arguments to my first question: why do you need exception here from generic kernel
> approach?
It is not deviating from generic kernel approach as lot of vendors are doing this way.
eg:
config OMAP_WATCHDOG
tristate "OMAP Watchdog"
depends on ARCH_OMAP16XX || ARCH_OMAP2PLUS || COMPILE_TEST
config DAVINCI_WATCHDOG
tristate "DaVinci watchdog"
depends on ARCH_DAVINCI || ARCH_KEYSTONE || COMPILE_TEST
config K3_RTI_WATCHDOG
tristate "Texas Instruments K3 RTI watchdog"
depends on ARCH_K3 || COMPILE_TEST
Cheers,
Biju
