Messages in this thread | | | From | "Winiarska, Iwona" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] peci: PECI should depend on ARCH_ASPEED | Date | Wed, 30 Mar 2022 10:37:26 +0000 |
| |
On Tue, 2022-03-29 at 12:08 -0500, Patrick Williams wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 12:33:14PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 11:21:37AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > The Platform Environment Control Interface (PECI) is only available on > > > Baseboard Management Controllers (BMC) for Intel processors. Currently > > > the only supported BMCs are ASpeed BMC SoCs. Hence add a dependency on > > > ARCH_ASPEED, to prevent asking the user about the PECI subsystem when > > > configuring a kernel without ASpeed SoC support. > > > > > > Fixes: 6523d3b2ffa238ac ("peci: Add core infrastructure") > > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> > > > --- > > > drivers/peci/Kconfig | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/peci/Kconfig b/drivers/peci/Kconfig > > > index 89872ad833201510..0d3ef8ba0998d649 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/peci/Kconfig > > > +++ b/drivers/peci/Kconfig > > > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ > > > > > > menuconfig PECI > > > tristate "PECI support" > > > + depends on ARCH_ASPEED || COMPILE_TEST > > > > I hate ARCH_ dependencies as there is nothing specific with that one > > platform that means that this driver subsystem will only work on that > > one. > > The motivation in the commit message isn't even accurate because the chips > under ARCH_NPCM are usually used as a BMC as well and PECI is just as important > for them. HPE also has a custom chip they use as BMC and they've started the > process for upstreaming that support.
"Currently the only supported BMCs are ASpeed BMC SoCs." From PECI subsystem perspective (not BMC support in general), it is technically true for now - but I agree with Greg and Patrick, this is just artificially introducing build-time dependencies where in fact there are none. And yes - we would then have to add the "depends on ARCH_YET_ANOTHER_ARCH" to generic subsystem anytime we add a new PECI controller. This belongs in the controller (and the ASPEED one depends on ARCH_ASPEED).
> > > I'm all for fixing build dependancies, but it should be fine to build > > all drivers for all arches. > > There are a few drivers, like PECI and FSI, that are likely only useful > when being used in the BMC space. Is it worth having a "config BMC" for > drivers which are likely only useful in a BMC environment and that we can > "if BMC" around these drivers so they get hidden from the menuconfig for > typical use cases?
We don't have "config SERVER/config DESKTOP/config IOT". I don't think there's anything special about BMCs to benefit from introducing that (ultimately, this would be yet another "artificial build-time dependency").
Thanks -Iwona
>
| |