On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 3:43 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 9:14 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 08:55:21PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 8:18 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 08:06:18PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 11:24 AM Yicong Yang > > > > > <yangyic...@hisilicon.com> wrote:
... > > > > > I guess it's still fine to add a dependency on ACPI? > > > > > > > > But why? > > > > > > Please tell me how/when the driver is used when CONFIG_ACPI=n. > > > > I'm not using it at all. Ask the author :-) > > > > But if we follow your logic, then we need to mark all the _platform_ drivers > > for x86 world as ACPI dependent? This sounds ugly. > > Do all other x86 platform drivers have (1) an .acpi_match_table[] and > (2) no other way of instantiating their devices? > The first driver from the top of my memory I looked at is rtc-cmos: > it has no .acpi_match_table[], and the rtc-cmos device is instantiated > from arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c. > > For drivers with only an .of_match_table(), and no legacy users > instantiating platform devices, we do have dependencies on OF. This is not true. Entire IIO subsystem is an example. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
