Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Dec 2023 17:16:29 +0100 | From | Michael Büsch <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] bcma,ssb: simplify dependency handling for bcma and ssb drivers |
| |
Hi Lukas,
thanks for your patch.
On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:03:54 +0100 Lukas Bulwahn <lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com> wrote:
> While reading through the code, I was > confused on what the dependencies were trying to tell me, as the > config symbols and conditions seemed to repeat over and over in > different places.
The {SSB,BCMA}_POSSIBLE constants are defining the conditions under which it is possible to 'select' SSB/BCMA. SSB and BCMA are usually 'select'ed rather than depended on, for better user experience while configuring.
> I thought it was worth a clean up and this was the patch I came up > with in the end.
IMO this does not clean up or simplify the code. It rather makes it more complicated to maintain.
The idea behind the POSSIBLE constants it to _not_ spread the conditions all across the drivers. That has significant advantages, if the condition changes.
I also don't see the redundancy in the resulting dependency conditions as a bad thing. It's better if every option explicitly defines its dependencies rather than expecting something else to depend on it. That's fragile.
NAK from me.
-- Michael Büsch https://bues.ch/ [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |