Re: [RFC 8/9] PCI/pwrseq: add a pwrseq driver for QCA6390

Kalle Valo
2024-01-09T10:09:11Z

Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 5:18 PM Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Jeff Johnson <quic_jjohnson@quicinc.com> writes:
>>
>> > On 1/4/2024 5:01 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>> >> diff --git a/drivers/pci/pcie/pwrseq/Kconfig b/drivers/pci/pcie/pwrseq/Kconfig
>> >> index 010e31f432c9..f9fe555b8506 100644
>> >> --- a/drivers/pci/pcie/pwrseq/Kconfig
>> >> +++ b/drivers/pci/pcie/pwrseq/Kconfig
>> >> @@ -6,3 +6,14 @@ menuconfig PCIE_PWRSEQ
>> >> help
>> >> Say yes here to enable support for PCIe power sequencing
>> >> drivers.
>> >> +
>> >> +if PCIE_PWRSEQ
>> >> +
>> >> +config PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390
>> >> + tristate "PCIe Power Sequencing driver for QCA6390"
>> >> + depends on ARCH_QCOM || COMPILE_TEST
>> >> + help
>> >> + Enable support for the PCIe power sequencing driver for the
>> >> + ath11k module of the QCA6390 WLAN/BT chip.
>> >> +
>> >> +endif
>> >
>> > As I mentioned in the 5/9 patch I'm concerned that the current
>> > definition of PCIE_PWRSEQ and PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390 will effectively hide
>> > the fact that QCA6390 may need additional configuration since the menu
>> > item will only show up if you have already enabled PCIE_PWRSEQ.
>> > Yes I see that these are set in the defconfig in 9/9 but I'm concerned
>> > about the more generic case.
>> >
>> > I'm wondering if there should be a separate config QCA6390 within ath11k
>> > which would then select PCIE_PWRSEQ and PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390
>>
>> Or is it possible to provide an optional dependency in Kconfig (I guess
>
> imply PCIE_PWRSEQ
> imply PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390
> ?

Nice, I had forgotten imply altogether. Would 'imply
PCIE_PWRSEQ_QCA6390' in ath11k Kconfig be enough to address Jeff's
concern?

--