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

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

[Robert Marko]

LAN969x uses the same sensor and driver, so make it selectable for
ARCH_MICROCHIP.

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
 	help
 	  If you say yes here you get support for temperature monitoring
 	  with the Microchip Sparx5 SoC.
-- 
2.51.0

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

[Guenter Roeck]

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.

Guenter

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

[Robert Marko]

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.

It was suggested to me to use ARCH_MICROCHIP instead of adding new ARCH symbols
one by one, but if you prefer, I could just add ARCH_LAN969X instead.

Regards,
Robert
>
> Guenter
>


-- 
Robert Marko
Staff Embedded Linux Engineer
Sartura d.d.
Lendavska ulica 16a
10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Email: robert.marko@sartura.hr
Web: www.sartura.hr

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

[Guenter Roeck]

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

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

[Robert Marko]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 5:33 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>
> 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) ?

Both ARCH_LAN969X (Which is now in linux-next) and ARCH_SPARX5 select
ARCH_MICROCHIP
which was introduced to avoid the need to keep adding new ARCH symbols
to individual drivers.

LAN969X_SWITCH is just the switchdev driver for ARCH_LAN969X.

> 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.

Yes, I should have pointed out that this depends on linux-next since
the prerequisite
Kconfig.platforms change for ARM64 is in linux-next, but it should
land in the regular ARM tree
if its not already there.

If there is need for a v2, I will make sure to expand the description.
Sorry for the confusion.

Regards,
Robert
>
> Guenter



-- 
Robert Marko
Staff Embedded Linux Engineer
Sartura d.d.
Lendavska ulica 16a
10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Email: robert.marko@sartura.hr
Web: www.sartura.hr

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

[Guenter Roeck]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 10:12:48PM +0200, Robert Marko wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 5:33 PM Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> >
> > 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) ?
> 
> Both ARCH_LAN969X (Which is now in linux-next) and ARCH_SPARX5 select
> ARCH_MICROCHIP
> which was introduced to avoid the need to keep adding new ARCH symbols
> to individual drivers.
> 
> LAN969X_SWITCH is just the switchdev driver for ARCH_LAN969X.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Yes, I should have pointed out that this depends on linux-next since
> the prerequisite
> Kconfig.platforms change for ARM64 is in linux-next, but it should
> land in the regular ARM tree
> if its not already there.
> 
> If there is need for a v2, I will make sure to expand the description.

Please do.

Guenter