On 24/01/2025 13:55, Biju Das wrote: > 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 You see - only one ARCH_EXYNOS. That's the arch and vendor. Exynos is the entire arch for arm32 and arm64 consisting of all of SoCs. S3C and S5P are entirely different, much older archs - these even could not be combined in one image with Exynos some time ago. > > > 575 config SA1100_WATCHDOG > 576 tristate "SA1100/PXA2xx watchdog" > 577 depends on ARCH_SA1100 || ARCH_PXA || COMPILE_TEST > > and many more. Again: only one SA1100, one PXA. Not per each PXA SoC. So these prove my point - use only your ARCH > > >> >> || 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 Anyway, that's ancient OMAP, we speak about new devices. > > > config DAVINCI_WATCHDOG > tristate "DaVinci watchdog" > depends on ARCH_DAVINCI || ARCH_KEYSTONE || COMPILE_TEST Different ARCH, not SoCs! > > > config K3_RTI_WATCHDOG > tristate "Texas Instruments K3 RTI watchdog" > depends on ARCH_K3 || COMPILE_TEST Dependency on ARCH. Do you understand the difference between ARCH and SoC (ARCH_R9A09G47 is the SoC - individual or family)? Best regards, Krzysztof
