SUNXI_CCU already depends on ARCH_SUNXI, so adding the dependency to
individual SoC drivers is redundant.
Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <[email protected]>
---
drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig | 43 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig
index 461537679c04..64cfa022e320 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig
@@ -14,43 +14,43 @@ config SUNIV_F1C100S_CCU
config SUN20I_D1_CCU
tristate "Support for the Allwinner D1 CCU"
- default RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI
- depends on (RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
+ default RISCV
+ depends on RISCV || COMPILE_TEST
config SUN20I_D1_R_CCU
tristate "Support for the Allwinner D1 PRCM CCU"
- default RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI
- depends on (RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
+ default RISCV
+ depends on RISCV || COMPILE_TEST
config SUN50I_A64_CCU
tristate "Support for the Allwinner A64 CCU"
- default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
- depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
+ default ARM64
+ depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
config SUN50I_A100_CCU
tristate "Support for the Allwinner A100 CCU"
- default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
- depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
+ default ARM64
+ depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
config SUN50I_A100_R_CCU
tristate "Support for the Allwinner A100 PRCM CCU"
- default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
- depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
+ default ARM64
+ depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
config SUN50I_H6_CCU
tristate "Support for the Allwinner H6 CCU"
- default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
- depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
+ default ARM64
+ depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
config SUN50I_H616_CCU
tristate "Support for the Allwinner H616 CCU"
- default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
- depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
+ default ARM64
+ depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
config SUN50I_H6_R_CCU
tristate "Support for the Allwinner H6 and H616 PRCM CCU"
- default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
- depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
+ default ARM64
+ depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
config SUN4I_A10_CCU
tristate "Support for the Allwinner A10/A20 CCU"
@@ -71,8 +71,7 @@ config SUN6I_A31_CCU
config SUN6I_RTC_CCU
tristate "Support for the Allwinner H616/R329 RTC CCU"
- default ARCH_SUNXI
- depends on ARCH_SUNXI || COMPILE_TEST
+ default y
config SUN8I_A23_CCU
tristate "Support for the Allwinner A23 CCU"
@@ -91,8 +90,8 @@ config SUN8I_A83T_CCU
config SUN8I_H3_CCU
tristate "Support for the Allwinner H3 CCU"
- default MACH_SUN8I || (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI)
- depends on MACH_SUN8I || (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
+ default MACH_SUN8I || ARM64
+ depends on MACH_SUN8I || ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
config SUN8I_V3S_CCU
tristate "Support for the Allwinner V3s CCU"
@@ -101,7 +100,7 @@ config SUN8I_V3S_CCU
config SUN8I_DE2_CCU
tristate "Support for the Allwinner SoCs DE2 CCU"
- default MACH_SUN8I || (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI)
+ default MACH_SUN8I || ARM64
config SUN8I_R40_CCU
tristate "Support for the Allwinner R40 CCU"
@@ -115,6 +114,6 @@ config SUN9I_A80_CCU
config SUN8I_R_CCU
tristate "Support for Allwinner SoCs' PRCM CCUs"
- default MACH_SUN8I || (ARCH_SUNXI && ARM64)
+ default MACH_SUN8I || ARM64
endif
--
2.37.4
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 13:13:15 -0600
Samuel Holland <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
thanks for addressing this!
> SUNXI_CCU already depends on ARCH_SUNXI, so adding the dependency to
> individual SoC drivers is redundant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <[email protected]>
> ---
>
> drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig | 43 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig
> index 461537679c04..64cfa022e320 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig
> @@ -14,43 +14,43 @@ config SUNIV_F1C100S_CCU
>
> config SUN20I_D1_CCU
> tristate "Support for the Allwinner D1 CCU"
> - default RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI
> - depends on (RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
> + default RISCV
> + depends on RISCV || COMPILE_TEST
I agree on the "depends" part: Indeed the guard symbol already covers
that, so it's redundant.
However I am not so sure about the "default" part: When ARCH_SUNXI is
deselected, but COMPILE_TEST in enabled, we default to every CCU driver
being built-in. I am not sure this is the intention, or at least
expected when doing compile testing?
>
> config SUN20I_D1_R_CCU
> tristate "Support for the Allwinner D1 PRCM CCU"
> - default RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI
> - depends on (RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
> + default RISCV
> + depends on RISCV || COMPILE_TEST
>
> config SUN50I_A64_CCU
> tristate "Support for the Allwinner A64 CCU"
> - default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
> - depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
> + default ARM64
> + depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
I wonder if this "depends" line was always wrong and should be fixed:
We can compile a 32-bit ARM kernel and run it on an A64. Granted this
requires a special bootloader or a hacked U-Boot (tried that), and
reveals some other issues with the decompressor, but technically there
is no 64-bit dependency in here.
The same goes for all the other ARM64 CCUs: Cortex-A53s can run AArch32
in all exception levels.
So shall we just completely remove the "depends" line for those, and
let SUNXI_CCU do that job? Or use use !RISCV || COMPILE_TEST?
Cheers,
Andre
>
> config SUN50I_A100_CCU
> tristate "Support for the Allwinner A100 CCU"
> - default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
> - depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
> + default ARM64
> + depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
>
> config SUN50I_A100_R_CCU
> tristate "Support for the Allwinner A100 PRCM CCU"
> - default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
> - depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
> + default ARM64
> + depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
>
> config SUN50I_H6_CCU
> tristate "Support for the Allwinner H6 CCU"
> - default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
> - depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
> + default ARM64
> + depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
>
> config SUN50I_H616_CCU
> tristate "Support for the Allwinner H616 CCU"
> - default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
> - depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
> + default ARM64
> + depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
>
> config SUN50I_H6_R_CCU
> tristate "Support for the Allwinner H6 and H616 PRCM CCU"
> - default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
> - depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
> + default ARM64
> + depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
>
> config SUN4I_A10_CCU
> tristate "Support for the Allwinner A10/A20 CCU"
> @@ -71,8 +71,7 @@ config SUN6I_A31_CCU
>
> config SUN6I_RTC_CCU
> tristate "Support for the Allwinner H616/R329 RTC CCU"
> - default ARCH_SUNXI
> - depends on ARCH_SUNXI || COMPILE_TEST
> + default y
>
> config SUN8I_A23_CCU
> tristate "Support for the Allwinner A23 CCU"
> @@ -91,8 +90,8 @@ config SUN8I_A83T_CCU
>
> config SUN8I_H3_CCU
> tristate "Support for the Allwinner H3 CCU"
> - default MACH_SUN8I || (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI)
> - depends on MACH_SUN8I || (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
> + default MACH_SUN8I || ARM64
> + depends on MACH_SUN8I || ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
>
> config SUN8I_V3S_CCU
> tristate "Support for the Allwinner V3s CCU"
> @@ -101,7 +100,7 @@ config SUN8I_V3S_CCU
>
> config SUN8I_DE2_CCU
> tristate "Support for the Allwinner SoCs DE2 CCU"
> - default MACH_SUN8I || (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI)
> + default MACH_SUN8I || ARM64
>
> config SUN8I_R40_CCU
> tristate "Support for the Allwinner R40 CCU"
> @@ -115,6 +114,6 @@ config SUN9I_A80_CCU
>
> config SUN8I_R_CCU
> tristate "Support for Allwinner SoCs' PRCM CCUs"
> - default MACH_SUN8I || (ARCH_SUNXI && ARM64)
> + default MACH_SUN8I || ARM64
>
> endif
On 12/2/22 18:14, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 13:13:15 -0600
> Samuel Holland <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks for addressing this!
>
>> SUNXI_CCU already depends on ARCH_SUNXI, so adding the dependency to
>> individual SoC drivers is redundant.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <[email protected]>
>> ---
>>
>> drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig | 43 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig
>> index 461537679c04..64cfa022e320 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig
>> @@ -14,43 +14,43 @@ config SUNIV_F1C100S_CCU
>>
>> config SUN20I_D1_CCU
>> tristate "Support for the Allwinner D1 CCU"
>> - default RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI
>> - depends on (RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
>> + default RISCV
>> + depends on RISCV || COMPILE_TEST
>
> I agree on the "depends" part: Indeed the guard symbol already covers
> that, so it's redundant.
> However I am not so sure about the "default" part: When ARCH_SUNXI is
> deselected, but COMPILE_TEST in enabled, we default to every CCU driver
> being built-in. I am not sure this is the intention, or at least
> expected when doing compile testing?
SUNXI_CCU, which these depend on, is still "default ARCH_SUNXI", so if
you have ARCH_SUNXI disabled, you only get any drivers if you manually
enable SUNXI_CCU. I mentioned this in the patch 2 description, but maybe
I should move that comment here.
>>
>> config SUN20I_D1_R_CCU
>> tristate "Support for the Allwinner D1 PRCM CCU"
>> - default RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI
>> - depends on (RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
>> + default RISCV
>> + depends on RISCV || COMPILE_TEST
>>
>> config SUN50I_A64_CCU
>> tristate "Support for the Allwinner A64 CCU"
>> - default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
>> - depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
>> + default ARM64
>> + depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
>
> I wonder if this "depends" line was always wrong and should be fixed:
> We can compile a 32-bit ARM kernel and run it on an A64. Granted this
> requires a special bootloader or a hacked U-Boot (tried that), and
> reveals some other issues with the decompressor, but technically there
> is no 64-bit dependency in here.
> The same goes for all the other ARM64 CCUs: Cortex-A53s can run AArch32
> in all exception levels.
I was trying to simplify things by hiding irrelevant options, and you
bring up an edge case of an edge case. :) I am okay with relaxing the
dependency, though I would want to leave them disabled by default for
32-bit kernels (excluding them from the change in patch 2).
> So shall we just completely remove the "depends" line for those, and
> let SUNXI_CCU do that job? Or use use !RISCV || COMPILE_TEST?
That, or we could add MACH_SUN8I to the condition. I don't have a strong
opinion.
Regards,
Samuel
On Fri, 2 Dec 2022 19:52:41 -0600
Samuel Holland <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Samuel,
> On 12/2/22 18:14, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 13:13:15 -0600
> > Samuel Holland <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > thanks for addressing this!
> >
> >> SUNXI_CCU already depends on ARCH_SUNXI, so adding the dependency to
> >> individual SoC drivers is redundant.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig | 43 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
> >> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig
> >> index 461537679c04..64cfa022e320 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/Kconfig
> >> @@ -14,43 +14,43 @@ config SUNIV_F1C100S_CCU
> >>
> >> config SUN20I_D1_CCU
> >> tristate "Support for the Allwinner D1 CCU"
> >> - default RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI
> >> - depends on (RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
> >> + default RISCV
> >> + depends on RISCV || COMPILE_TEST
> >
> > I agree on the "depends" part: Indeed the guard symbol already covers
> > that, so it's redundant.
> > However I am not so sure about the "default" part: When ARCH_SUNXI is
> > deselected, but COMPILE_TEST in enabled, we default to every CCU driver
> > being built-in. I am not sure this is the intention, or at least
> > expected when doing compile testing?
>
> SUNXI_CCU, which these depend on, is still "default ARCH_SUNXI", so if
> you have ARCH_SUNXI disabled, you only get any drivers if you manually
> enable SUNXI_CCU. I mentioned this in the patch 2 description, but maybe
> I should move that comment here.
Yeah, I read this later on, I guess it's fine then.
>
> >>
> >> config SUN20I_D1_R_CCU
> >> tristate "Support for the Allwinner D1 PRCM CCU"
> >> - default RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI
> >> - depends on (RISCV && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
> >> + default RISCV
> >> + depends on RISCV || COMPILE_TEST
> >>
> >> config SUN50I_A64_CCU
> >> tristate "Support for the Allwinner A64 CCU"
> >> - default ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI
> >> - depends on (ARM64 && ARCH_SUNXI) || COMPILE_TEST
> >> + default ARM64
> >> + depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST
> >
> > I wonder if this "depends" line was always wrong and should be fixed:
> > We can compile a 32-bit ARM kernel and run it on an A64. Granted this
> > requires a special bootloader or a hacked U-Boot (tried that), and
> > reveals some other issues with the decompressor, but technically there
> > is no 64-bit dependency in here.
> > The same goes for all the other ARM64 CCUs: Cortex-A53s can run AArch32
> > in all exception levels.
>
> I was trying to simplify things by hiding irrelevant options, and you
> bring up an edge case of an edge case. :) I am okay with relaxing the
> dependency, though I would want to leave them disabled by default for
> 32-bit kernels (excluding them from the change in patch 2).
Yes, definitely, that was the idea.
And sorry for being a nuisance, but I think this "depends on ARCH_SUNXI"
here is and was always misplaced. In contrast to things like "depends
on PCI" or "depends on GPIOLIB", there is no real dependency on
ARCH_SUNXI or even ARM/RISCV here, it's more a "only useful on
ARCH_SUNXI".
And this ARM vs ARM64 was just another rationale for not being
overzealous with the dependency.
But I see that this is an orthogonal discussion to this patch, so this
should not block it. I will meditate over both patches again, since I
have the gut feeling that the end result is fine.
Cheers,
Andre
>
> > So shall we just completely remove the "depends" line for those, and
> > let SUNXI_CCU do that job? Or use use !RISCV || COMPILE_TEST?
>
> That, or we could add MACH_SUN8I to the condition. I don't have a strong
> opinion.
>
> Regards,
> Samuel
>
Dne sobota, 26. november 2022 ob 20:13:15 CET je Samuel Holland napisal(a):
> SUNXI_CCU already depends on ARCH_SUNXI, so adding the dependency to
> individual SoC drivers is redundant.
>
> Signed-off-by: Samuel Holland <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Jernej Skrabec <[email protected]>
Best regards,
Jernej