Re: [PATCH 12/16] clk: lan966x: Add MCHP_LAN966X_PCI dependency

[Herve Codina]

Hi Andy,

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:38:30 +0300
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 07, 2025 at 04:55:41PM +0200, Herve Codina wrote:
> > The lan966x clock controller depends on the LAN969x architecture or the
> > LAN966x SoC.
> > 
> > This clock controller can be used by the LAN966x PCI device and so it
> > needs to be available when the LAN966x PCI device is enabled.  
> 
> ...
> 
> >  	depends on HAS_IOMEM
> >  	depends on OF
> > -	depends on SOC_LAN966 || ARCH_LAN969X || COMPILE_TEST
> > +	depends on SOC_LAN966 || ARCH_LAN969X || MCHP_LAN966X_PCI || COMPILE_TEST  
> 
> This doesn't seem to scale. Why not simply
> 
> 	depends on HAS_IOMEM
> 	depends on OF || COMPILE_TEST
> 
> ?
> 

With your proposal, if we configure a kernel without SOC_LAN966x or
ARCH_LAN969x or MCHP_LAN966X_PCI, in other words we configure a kernel
without a real needed for this clock controller driver, the user will be
asked about this driver.

This was already reported by Geert
   https://lore.kernel.org/all/369233dfded88ff6fb342e03794fe31985d84d82.1737383314.git.geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx/

I agreed with Geert that asking the user about those driver the LAN966x
depends on was not a good things and leads to confusion.

So, to prevent asking the user about this driver, I followed the same
strategy and added the dependencies.

IMHO, we should keep those dependencies here.

Best regards,
Hervé