Hi Geert,
Thank you for the review.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 4:16 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Prabhakar,
>
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 20:33, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Enable various Renesas SoCs by default when ARCH_RENESAS is selected.
> > Adding default y if ARCH_RENESAS to the relevant configurations removes
> > the need to manually enable individual SoCs in defconfig files.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
> > --- a/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig
> > @@ -65,17 +65,20 @@ if ARM && ARCH_RENESAS
>
> Note that this whole block already depends on ARCH_RENESAS...
> I forgot about the reason, but commit 8070ba6348608aa1 ("ARM: shmobile:
> fix build regressions") reminded me. This is also the reason why we
> cannot open the block for COMPILE_TEST in general.
>
> >
> > config ARCH_EMEV2
> > bool "ARM32 Platform support for Emma Mobile EV2"
> > + default y if ARCH_RENESAS
>
> ... so the "if ..." part is not really needed for arm32 SoCs.
>
Ok, got you.
> > @@ -197,6 +216,7 @@ if ARM64
>
> Note that unlike on arm32, the arm64 (and riscv) block does not depend
> on ARCH_RENESAS, so the "if ARCH_RENESAS" part is needed.
To keep it consistent would you prefer `if ARM64 && ARCH_RENESAS` to
be added and then all of the SoCs can just have `default y
ARCH_RENESAS`.
> In case anyone is wondering, on riscv we definitely don't want to
> enable ARCH_R9A07G043 by default, as it depends on NONPORTABLE.
>
Yep.
Cheers,
Prabhakar
