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
