Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-199533-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <e00498fccf6dcbcf63bd24a137bfc7abd1b98345.1716967720.git.geert+renesas@glider.be>
 <Zlb_txl4CqCfxWZz@pluto> <CAMuHMdUyW_RxfUaxnyWVzPsdXQWqCQbgZ+avHskinXkrSFqhtw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Zl3HiBX8ih6Sret6@bogus>
In-Reply-To: <Zl3HiBX8ih6Sret6@bogus>
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:52:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVkeKbUa45okF8qGOVVLRcOOtq=54yett+4dbyktCHxeg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mailbox: ARM_MHU_V3 should depend on ARM64
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>, Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Sudeep,

On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 3:39=E2=80=AFPM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> =
wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 01:36:42PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Wed, May 29, 2024 at 12:13=E2=80=AFPM 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 w=
hen
> > > > 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 tec=
hnical
> > > 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 im=
pose...
> > > ...having said that, surely my live testing were performed only on ar=
m64 models
> > > as of now.
> >
> > For that, we have COMPILE_TEST=3Dy.
> >
> > > So, I am not saying that I am against this proposed fix but what is t=
he
> > > 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.
>
> I am fine with this fix but I have seen quite opposite argument. That is
> not to add dependency if it is not strictly required.

Can you please point me to that reference?

> Also since you state that the fix is to avoid users of other archs being
> posed with the question that they may get annoyed or can't answer, I
> wonder if the right approach is to make this driver default "n" instead.

The driver already defaults to "n" (which is the default default ;-)

Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--=20
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k=
.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. Bu=
t
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like t=
hat.
                                -- Linus Torvalds