From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from bues.ch (bues.ch [80.190.117.144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 756731E4AF; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:40:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=bues.ch Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=bues.ch Received: by bues.ch with esmtpsa (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1rFGIr-000A6d-38; Mon, 18 Dec 2023 17:17:13 +0100 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 17:16:29 +0100 From: Michael =?UTF-8?B?QsO8c2No?= To: Lukas Bulwahn Cc: Kalle Valo , Johannes Berg , =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= , "David S . Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Larry Finger , Arend van Spriel , Franky Lin , Hante Meuleman , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, b43-dev@lists.infradead.org, brcm80211-dev-list.pdl@broadcom.com, SHA-cyfmac-dev-list@infineon.com, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcma,ssb: simplify dependency handling for bcma and ssb drivers Message-ID: <20231218171629.5cf95fd3@barney> In-Reply-To: References: <20231218115802.15859-1-lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> <26207725d5025318b831dd5a5feca67248aaa221.camel@sipsolutions.net> <87o7ensgjv.fsf@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.2.0 (GTK 3.24.38; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Sig_/Q7GEDofx/o0YmJSgzfmcjUH"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 --Sig_/Q7GEDofx/o0YmJSgzfmcjUH Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Lukas, thanks for your patch. On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:03:54 +0100 Lukas Bulwahn wrote: > While reading through the code, I was > confused on what the dependencies were trying to tell me, as the > config symbols and conditions seemed to repeat over and over in > different places. The {SSB,BCMA}_POSSIBLE constants are defining the conditions under which it is possible to 'select' SSB/BCMA. SSB and BCMA are usually 'select'ed rather than depended on, for better user experience while configuring. > I thought it was worth a clean up and this was the patch I came up > with in the end. IMO this does not clean up or simplify the code. It rather makes it more complicated to maintain. The idea behind the POSSIBLE constants it to _not_ spread the conditions all across the drivers. That has significant advantages, if the condition changes. I also don't see the redundancy in the resulting dependency conditions as a bad thing. It's better if every option explicitly defines its dependencies rather than expecting something else to depend on it. That's fragile. NAK from me. --=20 Michael B=C3=BCsch https://bues.ch/ --Sig_/Q7GEDofx/o0YmJSgzfmcjUH Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEihRzkKVZOnT2ipsS9TK+HZCNiw4FAmWAcF0ACgkQ9TK+HZCN iw5l7BAAgpdZdzT7v2hPcLw7K9DpHS31i4y/GGlvC4rtJuMzznJNJQGs1MQDH5qM xo1mioY+gzeH17iRop1VCJynuzBTwOkJNz0cKPq6Iia2dS1z+YNZWwaJp0jvF0aQ 0OQO+rzX+z2ydUmiE9jSbeS1CO9l1Pk9pvKBQhp/Axg/fq1Om+MOQSdngezPdH/7 pgJnhM7XYnEy5xyKEjB5yPzcR3LuCC5NPnq964J7/+Y4A5HfWGtQBKLO6F0+XWBF xeUlNl7uvmXilz6MwSsQkiIoSmkQBJKQwpYXV1uXi4VXiz7man3cY+ZuayqlyuVL JfgM0pbmldVPiiXTeL0ds+LuZm+1/xiXQtmoWNp4O1VxBR+XdPKoDxL2nkC4GB4W Okq2+TA6n1WKPIrI4WAdhASvw+skaIx8HawIoM4jhGrc4tFaX93DA80gNOQuJ1Yt PH752DI0wcM03qnYoPIrkcfYxrdX/h7sYEY8BCYJfetRjWwSsZT8y7CtVz47qszE WhwU2E1sMSLM5rHV+W8t8RXmvzZEo2AUMNDQ2V1PFtn/FALO52cQ3HvwbOee1OjE HZeMAJE3m2g5xxm2O/omOXSPwm8H7QE6DhPhA3JmrSSqjFv1vSVEx/3n/DuX8DmG JkmrPATbaZbRYQFthprmECBBXcOgnAhCa4ZDDja1+/lL3q0ArCY= =fqXM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/Q7GEDofx/o0YmJSgzfmcjUH--