Re: [PATCH] ARM: use "depends on" for SoC configs instead of "if" after prompt

["Heiko Stübner" <heiko-4mtYJXux2i+zQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>]

Am Montag, 16. November 2015, 12:06:10 schrieb Masahiro Yamada:
> Many ARM sub-architectures use prompts followed by "if" conditional,
> but it is wrong.
> 
> Please notice the difference between
> 
>     config ARCH_FOO
>             bool "Foo SoCs" if ARCH_MULTI_V7
> 
> and
> 
>     config ARCH_FOO
>             bool "Foo SoCs"
>             depends on ARCH_MULTI_V7
> 
> These two are *not* equivalent!
> 
> In the former statement, it is not ARCH_FOO, but its prompt that
> depends on ARCH_MULTI_V7.  So, it is completely valid that ARCH_FOO
> is selected by another, but ARCH_MULTI_V7 is still disabled. As it is
> not unmet dependency, Kconfig never warns.  This is probably not what
> you want.
> 
> The former should be used only when you need to do so, and you really
> understand what you are doing.  (In most cases, it should be wrong!)
> 
> For enabling/disabling sub-architectures, the latter is always correct.
> 
> As a good side effect, this commit fixes some entries over 80 columns
> (mach-imx, mach-integrator, mach-mbevu).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro-uWyLwvC0a2jby3iVrkZq2A@public.gmane.org>
> ---
> 
> I hope this patch is applied to ARM-SOC, but am CCing Kbuild ML
> because the correct understanding of Kconfig is required for this patch.
> 
> 

[...]

> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig
> index ae4eb7c..cef42fd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig
> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>  config ARCH_ROCKCHIP
> -	bool "Rockchip RK2928 and RK3xxx SOCs" if ARCH_MULTI_V7
> +	bool "Rockchip RK2928 and RK3xxx SOCs"
> +	depends on ARCH_MULTI_V7
>  	select PINCTRL
>  	select PINCTRL_ROCKCHIP
>  	select ARCH_HAS_RESET_CONTROLLER

for the Rockchip part
Acked-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko-4mtYJXux2i+zQB+pC5nmwQ@public.gmane.org>