Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcma,ssb: simplify dependency handling for bcma and ssb drivers

From: Michael Büsch <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2023 17:16:29 +0100

Hi Lukas,

thanks for your patch.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:03:54 +0100
Lukas Bulwahn <[email-masked]> 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/