Re: [PATCH] iio: accel: bma220: move set_wdt() out of bma220_core

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>]

On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 07:27:35 +0200
Petre Rodan <petre.rodan@subdimension.ro> wrote:

> Hello Jonathan.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 06:23:18PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Oct 2025 14:50:18 +0300
> > Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 01:31:49PM +0300, Petre Rodan wrote:  
> > > > Move bma220_set_wdt() into bma220_i2c.c instead of using a conditional
> > > > based on i2c_verify_client() in bma220_core.c that would make core
> > > > always depend on the i2c module.    
> > > 
> > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> > > 
> > > But Kconfig for this driver is a bit strange. Usually we do other way around,
> > > i.e. make user visible selection of the glue drivers, while core is selected if
> > > at least one of the leaf driver selected by the user.
> > >   
> > This comes up from time to time.  There kind of isn't a right answer
> > to my mind in the trade off between complexity of configuration 
> > and desire for minimum useful set of Kconfig symbols and people wanting
> > to build only exactly what they want.  So we've ended up with a mix.
> > 
> > I don't mind setting a policy on this for new code going forwards, but
> > that means we need to decide which approach we prefer and document
> > it somewhere.  
> 
> I will come back with a new patch to Kconfig once you decide what is the best way to handle dependecies, but in the meantime can you please accept this current patch?
> 
> I keep getting automated errors that would be fixed by it:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202510210604.mAtgE54g-lkp@intel.com/
> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202510222324.SxYlIaLW-lkp@intel.com/
> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202510271347.115BMnsC-lkp@intel.com/

Done. Was travelling (and on wrong computer).

Should be resolved now.
> 
> If the current patch does not correctly reference the automated 0day-ci reports please tell me what I should change within my b4 workflow.
> 
> thank you,
> peter