Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-194039-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 12:48:37 +0100
From: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
	Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mailbox: ARM_MHU_V3 should depend on ARM64
Message-ID: <ZlcWFRftNHFOjYlr@pluto>
References: <e00498fccf6dcbcf63bd24a137bfc7abd1b98345.1716967720.git.geert+renesas@glider.be>
 <Zlb_txl4CqCfxWZz@pluto>
 <CAMuHMdUyW_RxfUaxnyWVzPsdXQWqCQbgZ+avHskinXkrSFqhtw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdUyW_RxfUaxnyWVzPsdXQWqCQbgZ+avHskinXkrSFqhtw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 01:36:42PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Cristian,
> 
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 12:13 PM Cristian Marussi
> <cristian.marussi@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 09:30:45AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > The ARM MHUv3 controller is only present on ARM64 SoCs.  Hence add a
> > > dependency on ARM64, to prevent asking the user about this driver when
> > > configuring a kernel for a different architecture than ARM64.
> >
> > the ARM64 dependency was dropped on purpose after a few iterations of
> > this series since, despite this being an ARM IP, it has really no technical
> > dependency on ARM arch, not even the usual one on ARM AMBA bus, being this a
> > platform driver, so it seemed an uneeded artificial restriction to impose...
> > ...having said that, surely my live testing were performed only on arm64 models
> > as of now.
> 
> For that, we have COMPILE_TEST=y.
> 
> > So, I am not saying that I am against this proposed fix but what is the
> > issue that is trying to solve, have you seen any compilation error ? or
> > is it just to avoid the user-prompting ?
> 
> I did not see a compile error (I didn't enable it on any non-ARM
> platform).
> 
> But it is rather futile to ask the user about (thousands of) drivers
> for hardware that cannot possibly be present on the system he is
> configuring a kernel for.

Understood, as of now it is certainly high-unlikely to find such an ARM
IP on a non-ARM SoC and I suppose that we can anyway drop this if ever the
day will come that such a system will appear.

Fine for me.

Thanks,
Cristian