Re: [PATCH 3/5] watchdog: Make RZV2HWDT driver depend on ARCH_R9A09G47

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 24/01/2025 14:10, Biju Das wrote:
>>>> Rather tell me why this is supposed to be different than other vendors?
>>>
>>> It is not different from other vendors.
>>>
>>> See, for eg:
>>> config S3C2410_WATCHDOG
>>>  557         tristate "S3C6410/S5Pv210/Exynos Watchdog"
>>>  558         depends on ARCH_S3C64XX || ARCH_S5PV210 || ARCH_EXYNOS || COMPILE_TEST
>>
>> You see - only one ARCH_EXYNOS.
>>
>> That's the arch and vendor. Exynos is the entire arch for arm32 and
>> arm64 consisting of all of SoCs.
> 
> In Renesas case it is ARCH_RENESAS.


So that's your dependency. Said in this thread long time ago.


> 
>>
>> S3C and S5P are entirely different, much older archs - these even could not be combined in one image
>> with Exynos some time ago.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 575 config SA1100_WATCHDOG
>>>  576         tristate "SA1100/PXA2xx watchdog"
>>>  577         depends on ARCH_SA1100 || ARCH_PXA || COMPILE_TEST
>>>
>>> and many more.
>>
>> Again: only one SA1100, one PXA. Not per each PXA SoC.
>>
>> So these prove my point - use only your ARCH
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> || ARM64 is already used solution
>>>
>>> If you are correct, then all should depend on either on ARM or ARM64 or RISCV etc...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since most of IP's in RZ/V2H and RZ/G3E are identical we could
>>>>> introduce a new family SoC ARCH_RZG3E_RZV2H to cover both or top level ARCH_RENESAS??
>>>>
>>>> You should not write drivers per SoCs (or even two or there SoCs) and
>>>> there is really no need to restrict them per each SoC.
>>>
>>> If I am not wrong, The watchdog subsystem uses similar approach.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise come with arguments to my first question: why do you need
>>>> exception here from generic kernel approach?
>>>
>>> It is not deviating from generic kernel approach as lot of vendors are doing this way.
>>> eg:
>>>
>>> config OMAP_WATCHDOG
>>>           tristate "OMAP Watchdog"
>>>          depends on ARCH_OMAP16XX || ARCH_OMAP2PLUS || COMPILE_TEST
>>
>> Anyway, that's ancient OMAP, we speak about new devices.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  config DAVINCI_WATCHDOG
>>>          tristate "DaVinci watchdog"
>>>           depends on ARCH_DAVINCI || ARCH_KEYSTONE || COMPILE_TEST
>>
>> Different ARCH, not SoCs!
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  config K3_RTI_WATCHDOG
>>>          tristate "Texas Instruments K3 RTI watchdog"
>>>          depends on ARCH_K3 || COMPILE_TEST
>>
>> Dependency on ARCH.
>>
>> Do you understand the difference between ARCH and SoC (ARCH_R9A09G47 is the SoC - individual or
>> family)?
> 
> ARCH_R9A09G47 --> Is a SoC (RZ/G3E)
> ARCH_R9A09G57 --> Is a SoC (RZ/V2H)
> 
> 90%of IP between these SoCs are same. So can't this belongs to same family of SoCs(eg: ARCH_RZ_G3E_V2H family)?


We do not discuss what these SoCs belong to. How does it matter if you
create ARCH_RZ_ONE_TWO_THREE_SOCS? Your dependency is ARCH, so unified
kernel image will be easier to create. This is not helping in unified
image and Greg was talking about this *multiple times*.


Best regards,
Krzysztof