Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-44006-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:45:23 +0100
From: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@dolcini.it>
To: Martin Kaiser <martin@kaiser.cx>
Cc: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@dolcini.it>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>, Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] gpio: vf610: allow disabling the vf610 driver
Message-ID: <ZbibA9QbOn19AXcn@gaggiata.pivistrello.it>
References: <20240124205900.14791-1-martin@kaiser.cx>
 <20240124205900.14791-2-martin@kaiser.cx>
 <20240126122719.GA13659@francesco-nb>
 <ZbgX-HGjM5fdftCG@v2202401214221251712.nicesrv.de>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZbgX-HGjM5fdftCG@v2202401214221251712.nicesrv.de>

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:26:16PM +0100, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> Thus wrote Francesco Dolcini (francesco@dolcini.it):
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:58:57PM +0100, Martin Kaiser wrote:
> > > The vf610 gpio driver is enabled by default for all i.MX machines,
> > > without any option to disable it in a board-specific config file.
> 
> > > Most i.MX chipsets have no hardware for this driver. Change the default
> > > to enable GPIO_VF610 for SOC_VF610 and disable it otherwise.
> 
> > > Add a text description after the bool type, this makes the driver
> > > selectable by make config etc.
> 
> > > Fixes: 30a35c07d9e9 ("gpio: vf610: drop the SOC_VF610 dependency for GPIO_VF610")
> > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kaiser <martin@kaiser.cx>
> > > ---
> 
> > >  config GPIO_VF610
> > > -	def_bool y
> > > +	bool "VF610 GPIO support"
> > > +	default y if SOC_VF610
> 
> > any reason for having this default y for SOC_VF610, but not for the
> > other SOC that uses the same variant (i.MX7ULP, ... ?).
> 
> Ok, it's probably not as consistent as it could be.

..

> Does this make sense?
sounds fair to me.

Francesco

> 
>    Martin