From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail11.truemail.it (mail11.truemail.it [217.194.8.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3185038FB0; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:45:49 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.194.8.81 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706597154; cv=none; b=SdGUFsTIY4j7rPOj1YjUS6RDyBh+G1SNv45U/CoM30RKFo/XM84RIjD9Yo0P2T/xc2E21qjitivEZBKKr8Qaeta+Lf+bMh+c2cuRiQEmBzoZ8nOfKdeMoUqprimItT7261dm8pYTDTyA3x2gS+C2QAtyrJzujPTTc2afGpbxq+w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1706597154; c=relaxed/simple; bh=hkpGj9OHDqmg5LLACRfNfNcEmbMlSDJ8qQ+JPuRBq4E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=KROJSfNF7yIKcjJ6faxGYUBBdOuXUOfiKgPpLVTum/ktzvjfRUbgLZI7iCeCWxYRSNGhhKXWYrWBSyujvvYpQS85MpIJyBNgxW+lOrhz2sfIHE/CHqEL5JSW5ASjeKTX8W3OJClYZsD7Lr3TbOYilIQTD6jb1dRnbikUoA7Izcg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=dolcini.it; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dolcini.it; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dolcini.it header.i=@dolcini.it header.b=lRP5wqfh; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.194.8.81 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=dolcini.it Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dolcini.it Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dolcini.it header.i=@dolcini.it header.b="lRP5wqfh" Received: from gaggiata.pivistrello.it (93-49-2-63.ip317.fastwebnet.it [93.49.2.63]) by mail11.truemail.it (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B59D8207BA; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:45:41 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dolcini.it; s=default; t=1706597141; bh=FxsvfETjaPEQI8snXPU1qv7kZWitYTiHpzdkfTm0vnI=; h=Received:From:To:Subject; b=lRP5wqfhX9V/IqOzcCJ7+HtnietOccMFfiAIbBFa/UElj29ZEI+8smoeqU6R7tM3w FGzKZdVMT5lpXY8AnaBFRKMZQi++JlVvMCbwpUsvOfYYtROUTpTCYLiKNLxo66mee8 T+vdFoV2jKC7E6JhGnWabpATY3NzaHWziN+x8qhE/uUCtXAFQAK1Z7+eOwIVUMTQUm IfkMWt9qtooHt26Ac+ilqUJLQiOUpSYqYhQrnJUeYhRcwkv3rzLzr/yix4l49yEkSV sbrsG7Qp3cndkyCUZer8lmKurlubpf66tbrkrNVU2qtWHSsyKOVY/MWMo1ffvMh40n JWOdoZatFQumA== Received: by gaggiata.pivistrello.it (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C56CB7F9A0; Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:45:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:45:23 +0100 From: Francesco Dolcini To: Martin Kaiser Cc: Francesco Dolcini , Shawn Guo , Linus Walleij , Bartosz Golaszewski , Peng Fan , Andrew Lunn , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] gpio: vf610: allow disabling the vf610 driver Message-ID: References: <20240124205900.14791-1-martin@kaiser.cx> <20240124205900.14791-2-martin@kaiser.cx> <20240126122719.GA13659@francesco-nb> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:26:16PM +0100, Martin Kaiser wrote: > Thus wrote Francesco Dolcini (francesco@dolcini.it): > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2024 at 09:58:57PM +0100, Martin Kaiser wrote: > > > The vf610 gpio driver is enabled by default for all i.MX machines, > > > without any option to disable it in a board-specific config file. > > > > Most i.MX chipsets have no hardware for this driver. Change the default > > > to enable GPIO_VF610 for SOC_VF610 and disable it otherwise. > > > > Add a text description after the bool type, this makes the driver > > > selectable by make config etc. > > > > Fixes: 30a35c07d9e9 ("gpio: vf610: drop the SOC_VF610 dependency for GPIO_VF610") > > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kaiser > > > --- > > > > config GPIO_VF610 > > > - def_bool y > > > + bool "VF610 GPIO support" > > > + default y if SOC_VF610 > > > any reason for having this default y for SOC_VF610, but not for the > > other SOC that uses the same variant (i.MX7ULP, ... ?). > > Ok, it's probably not as consistent as it could be. ... > Does this make sense? sounds fair to me. Francesco > > Martin