RE: [PATCH] usb: hide usb_of_get_companion_dev for CONFIG_USB=n

[Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com>]

Hi Arnd,

> From: Arnd Bergmann, Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 8:22 PM
> 
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 5:22 AM Yoshihiro Shimoda
> <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com> wrote:
> > > From: Arnd Bergmann, Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2018 11:27 PM
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 3:58 PM Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 13 Aug 2018, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/Kconfig b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/Kconfig
> > > > > index 0a16cbd4e528..663a8bd67a7b 100644
> > > > > --- a/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/Kconfig
> > > > > +++ b/drivers/usb/gadget/udc/Kconfig
> > > > > @@ -193,6 +193,7 @@ config USB_RENESAS_USB3
> > > > >       tristate 'Renesas USB3.0 Peripheral controller'
> > > > >       depends on ARCH_RENESAS || COMPILE_TEST
> > > > >       depends on EXTCON
> > > > > +     depends on USB || !USB
> > > >
> > > > Is this some weird standard idiom?  It looks really strange.
> > >
> > > Yes, and yes.
> > >
> > > A less common way to write it is
> > >
> > >         depends on (USB != m) || m
> > >
> > > which some people prefer, but I find even weirder.
> >
> > Thank you for the patch!
> >
> > On other thread, John mentions gadget-side drivers should not depend on host-side [1].
> > So, I submitted a patch today [2]. What do you think about my submitted patch?
> >
> > [1]
> > https://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=153433776202861&w=2
> 
> I don't really think this is a big issue, as you can still build the driver
> with CONFIG_USB=n, so it's not a strict dependency.

I got it.

> > [2]
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10569847/
> 
> On the other hand, your patch looks nice and is somewhat
> less confusing, so you have my Ack on that.

Thank you very much for your Ack!
I'll reply by myself to record your Ack on that.

Best regards,
Yoshihiro Shimoda

>       Arnd