Re: [PATCH 07/20] riscv: Remove ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB select

[Linus Walleij]

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:38 AM, Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:25 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 2:21 AM, Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB symbol was removed in commit 65053e1a7743
>>>> ("gpio: delete ARCH_[WANTS_OPTIONAL|REQUIRE]_GPIOLIB"). GPIOLIB should
>>>> just be selected explicitly if needed.
>>>>
>>>> Remove the ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB select from RISCV.
>>>>
>>>> See commit 0145071b3314 ("x86: Do away with
>>>> ARCH_[WANT_OPTIONAL|REQUIRE]_GPIOLIB") and commit da9a1c6767 ("arm64: do
>>>> away with ARCH_[WANT_OPTIONAL|REQUIRE]_GPIOLIB") as well.
>>>>
>>>> Discovered with the
>>>> https://github.com/ulfalizer/Kconfiglib/blob/master/examples/list_undefined.py
>>>> script.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ulf Magnusson <ulfalizer@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> This should probaly be replaced with
>>> select GPIOLIB
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>> Linus Walleij
>>
>> That'd make more sense if GPIOLIB is actually used. The select has
>> been a no-op since mid-2016 at least, but maybe something else selects
>> GPIOLIB.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ulf
>
> Just replace it with your own patch once you've figured out the proper
> fix. More efficient than having a middle man making (sometimes poor)
> guesses.

I think it's just a side effect of the new RISCV arch being developed
outside of the mainline kernel. And they may have had a gpio driver
outside of the mainline as well.

Normally we don't encourage out-of-tree development, but new archs
are a bit of an exception since they have to be merged as a big
piece of upfront code at some point...

Anyways, if they don't have any GPIO in their machine yet, let's
let the RISCV maintainers apply this.

Yours,
Linus Walleij