Re: [PATCH] i2c: I2C_HISI should depend on ARCH_HISI && ACPI

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 4:54 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 3:35 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 4:02 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 10:50 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > It seems I missed that you are talking about platform device drivers.
>
> OK.
>
> > In any case it's not true. We have the platform drivers w/o legacy
> > users that are not dependent on OF.
>
> Example? ;-)

i2c-owl.c

> > They may _indirectly_ be dependent, but this is fine as I stated above
> > when suggested to move ACPI dependency on ARCH_xxx level.
>
> As per the response from the driver maintainer
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/bd8db435-24e1-5ab3-6b35-1d4d8a292a7e@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/,
> there is no dependency on ARCH_HISI, so moving the ACPI dependency
> up won't help.

So, an ACPI dependency is simply not applicable here as it's a compile
dependency as well, which is not a limitation for this driver. Again,
talk to Masahiro how to handle this, but I don't see any good
justification to have ACPI (compile time) dependency here. So, again
NAK!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko