Re: [RFC v2 02/39] ACPI: add dependency on HAS_IOPORT

[Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>]

On Thu, May 05, 2022 at 10:20:28AM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-05-04 at 21:58 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 7:53 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 03:50:00PM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > > > In a future patch HAS_IOPORT=n will result in inb()/outb() and friends
> > > > not being declared. As ACPI always uses I/O port access we simply depend
> > > > on HAS_IOPORT.
> > > 
> > > CONFIG_ACPI depends on ARCH_SUPPORTS_ACPI, which is only set by arm64,
> > > ia64, and x86, all of which support I/O port access.  So does this
> > > actually solve a problem?  I wouldn't think you'd be able to build
> > > ACPI on s390 even without this patch.
> > > "ACPI always uses I/O port access" is a pretty broad brush, and it
> > > would be useful to know specifically what the dependencies are.
> > > 
> > > Many ACPI hardware accesses use acpi_hw_read()/acpi_hw_write(), which
> > > use either MMIO or I/O port accesses depending on what the firmware
> > > told us.
> > 
> > I think this came from my original prototype of the series where I tested it
> > out on arm64 with HAS_IOPORT disabled. I would like to hide the definition
> > of inb()/outb() from include/asm-generic/io.h whenever CONFIG_HAS_IOPORT
> > is not set, and I was prototyping this on arm64.
> > 
> > There are uses of inb()/outb() in drivers/acpi/ec.c and drivers/acpi/osl.c,
> > which in turn are not optional in ACPI, so it seems that those are
> > required.
> > 
> > If we want to allow building arm64 without HAS_IOPORT for some reason,
> > that means either force-disabling ACPI as well, or changin ACPI to not
> > rely on port I/O. I think it's fine to leave that as a problem for whoever
> > wants to make HAS_IOPORT optional in the future, and drop the
> > dependency here.
> 
> I'll improve the commit message to make the dependency on HAS_IOPORT
> more clear. I also agree with Arnd that since all architectures where
> ACPI is useful have I/O ports making it work without I/O port access
> compiled in is for another day.

I don't really see the point of including this patch at all.  It
doesn't solve any existing problem.