Re: [PATCH] i2c: I2C_HISI should depend on ARCH_HISI && ACPI
From: Geert Uytterhoeven
Date: Mon Apr 19 2021 - 09:02:58 EST
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:50 AM Andy Shevchenko
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:43 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:14 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 08:55:21PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:18 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 08:06:18PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:24 AM Yicong Yang <yangyicong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > I guess it's still fine to add a dependency on ACPI?
> > > > >
> > > > > But why?
> > > >
> > > > Please tell me how/when the driver is used when CONFIG_ACPI=n.
> > >
> > > I'm not using it at all. Ask the author :-)
> > >
> > > But if we follow your logic, then we need to mark all the _platform_ drivers
> > > for x86 world as ACPI dependent? This sounds ugly.
> > Do all other x86 platform drivers have (1) an .acpi_match_table and
> > (2) no other way of instantiating their devices?
> > The first driver from the top of my memory I looked at is rtc-cmos:
> > it has no .acpi_match_table, and the rtc-cmos device is instantiated
> > from arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c.
> > For drivers with only an .of_match_table(), and no legacy users
> > instantiating platform devices, we do have dependencies on OF.
> This is not true. Entire IIO subsystem is an example.
Do you care to elaborate?
Three quarters of the IIO drivers are I2C and SPI drivers, and thus not
subject to the above.
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds