On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 12:33:14PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 11:21:37AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > The Platform Environment Control Interface (PECI) is only available on
> > Baseboard Management Controllers (BMC) for Intel processors.  Currently
> > the only supported BMCs are ASpeed BMC SoCs.  Hence add a dependency on
> > ARCH_ASPEED, to prevent asking the user about the PECI subsystem when
> > configuring a kernel without ASpeed SoC support.
> > 
> > Fixes: 6523d3b2ffa238ac ("peci: Add core infrastructure")
> > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/peci/Kconfig | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/peci/Kconfig b/drivers/peci/Kconfig
> > index 89872ad833201510..0d3ef8ba0998d649 100644
> > --- a/drivers/peci/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/peci/Kconfig
> > @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> >  
> >  menuconfig PECI
> >  	tristate "PECI support"
> > +	depends on ARCH_ASPEED || COMPILE_TEST
> 
> I hate ARCH_ dependencies as there is nothing specific with that one
> platform that means that this driver subsystem will only work on that
> one.

The motivation in the commit message isn't even accurate because the chips
under ARCH_NPCM are usually used as a BMC as well and PECI is just as important
for them.  HPE also has a custom chip they use as BMC and they've started the
process for upstreaming that support.

> I'm all for fixing build dependancies, but it should be fine to build
> all drivers for all arches.

There are a few drivers, like PECI and FSI, that are likely only useful
when being used in the BMC space.  Is it worth having a "config BMC" for
drivers which are likely only useful in a BMC environment and that we can
"if BMC" around these drivers so they get hidden from the menuconfig for
typical use cases?

-- 
Patrick Williams