Re: [PATCH] hwmon: sparx5: make it selectable for ARCH_MICROCHIP

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 11:15:52AM +0200, Robert Marko wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 12:07 AM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > On 9/24/25 14:30, Robert Marko wrote:
> > > LAN969x uses the same sensor and driver, so make it selectable for
> > > ARCH_MICROCHIP.
> > >
> > LAN969x _is_ the Ethernet switch driver for Sparx5, so this description does
> > not really make sense. Same as what ? Itself ?
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robert.marko@sartura.hr>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/hwmon/Kconfig | 2 +-
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig b/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
> > > index 840d998f850a..ba2b7b2f6c44 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/drivers/hwmon/Kconfig
> > > @@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ config SENSORS_I5K_AMB
> > >
> > >   config SENSORS_SPARX5
> > >       tristate "Sparx5 SoC temperature sensor"
> > > -     depends on ARCH_SPARX5 || COMPILE_TEST
> > > +     depends on ARCH_MICROCHIP || COMPILE_TEST
> >
> > ... and silently disable it for ARCH_SPARX5 at the same time ? That is not what
> > the description says, and is completely unacceptable unless explained.
> >
> > >       help
> > >         If you say yes here you get support for temperature monitoring
> > >         with the Microchip Sparx5 SoC.
> >
> > ... and, on top of all that, still claim to support Sparx5 even that is
> > no longer the case.
> >
> > Ah, I see, this patch depends on patches in linux-next. You might want to say that.
> > Also, there is context missing: If the sensor is _only_ supported on Sparx5
> > (which everything but the dependency suggests), it does not make sense to extend
> > the dependencies. Why make the sensor configurable for _all_ microchip architectures
> > if it is only supported on Sparx5 ? Maybe there is some other series explaining
> > this, but this patch is all I got and it does not explain anything. It is only
> > confusing and does not make sense on its own.
> 
> Hi Guenter,
> I should have extended the description a bit.
> 
> LAN969x uses the same sensor as SparX-5, and they both select ARCH_MICROCHIP so
> SparX-5 only configs can still select this driver.

You mean ARCH_LAN969X (in contrast to ARCH_SPARX5 and LAN969X_SWITCH) ?
That makes sense, but it really needs to be explained in the patch
description. Also, since ARCH_MICROCHIP does not exist for arm64 in the
upstream kernel, a note that this depends on other patches in linux-next
would have been helpful. You may know that, and others may know that, but
I don't, and digging through that cost me at least an hour of time which
I don't have.

Guenter