Re: [PATCH] clk: COMMON_CLK_RPMI should depend on RISCV

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1450 bytes --]

On Wed, Oct 01, 2025 at 07:15:56PM -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2025, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 
> > The RISC-V platform management interface (RPMI) is only available on
> > RISC-V platforms.  Hence add a dependency on RISCV, to prevent asking
> > the user about this driver when configuring a kernel for a different
> > architecture.
> > 
> > Fixes: 5ba9f520f41a33c9 ("clk: Add clock driver for the RISC-V RPMI clock service group")
> > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> 
> Thanks Geert for catching this.
> 
> This patch is against unmerged patches in -next.  So I'll plan to add this 
> to the PR that I plan to send to Linus tomorrow -- unless any of the 
> drivers/clk maintainers would prefer that I not.
> 
> > And perhaps the "default RISCV" should be dropped, too?
> 
> Probably.  I guess we should just add this to the arch/riscv defconfig 
> instead.  Let's wait on this one for a few days to see if anyone has any 
> comments, and consider that change for v6.18-rc fixes.

There's little point having "default RISCV" if it's only available on
RISCV in the first place, may as well just be "default y" and be
simpler.

My 2c is that putting it in defconfig is barely worth doing, unless there
are actual platforms that use it.
Does QEMU provide a useful test for it that exercises the various code
paths, that would make it worthwhile to have in defconfig Anup?

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv