mbox series

[0/1] i2c: Handle HAS_IOPORT dependencies

Message ID 20240404143351.3950179-1-schnelle@linux.ibm.com
Headers show
Series i2c: Handle HAS_IOPORT dependencies | expand

Message

Niklas Schnelle April 4, 2024, 2:33 p.m. UTC 
Hi Andi,

This is a follow up in my ongoing effort of making inb()/outb() and
similar I/O port accessors compile-time optional. Previously I sent this
as a treewide series titled "treewide: Remove I/O port accessors for
HAS_IOPORT=n" with the latest being its 5th version[0]. With a significant
subset of patches merged I've changed over to per-subsystem series. These
series are stand alone and should be merged via the relevant tree such
that with all subsystems complete we can follow this up with the final
patch that will make the I/O port accessors compile-time optional.

The current state of the full series with changes to the remaining
subsystems and the aforementioned final patch can be found for your
convenience on my git.kernel.org tree in the has_ioport_v6 branch[1] with
signed tags. As for compile-time vs runtime see Linus' reply to my first
attempt[2].

Thanks,
Niklas

[0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230522105049.1467313-1-schnelle@linux.ibm.com/
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/niks/linux.git/log/?h=has_ioport_v6
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wg80je=K7madF4e7WrRNp37e3qh6y10Svhdc7O8SZ_-8g@mail.gmail.com/

Niklas Schnelle (1):
  i2c: add HAS_IOPORT dependencies

 drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 31 +++++++++++++++++--------------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

Comments

Niklas Schnelle April 5, 2024, 9:31 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Fri, 2024-04-05 at 11:09 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 04:33:51PM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> > In a future patch HAS_IOPORT=n will disable inb()/outb() and friends at
> > compile time. We thus need to add HAS_IOPORT as dependency for those
> > drivers using them.
> > 
> > Co-developed-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@linux.ibm.com>
> 
> Basically OK, but I am asking this question since last June because I
> couldn't find that information in changelogs:
> 
> In RFC v1, you agreed to drop PARPORT [1]. Is there a reason you haven't
> done this so far?

Only reasons seems to be that I'm bad at juggling large patch series.
i2c-partport.c builds fine with HAS_IOPORT=n and I don't see a reason
why it wouldn't work with MMIO based parallel port drivers.

Will send a v2 shortly.

Thanks,
Niklas