On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 08:27:11PM +0800, Miao Wang wrote: > Hi, > > > 2026年8月4日 19:39，Corey Minyard <[email protected]> 写道： > > > > On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 05:40:14PM +0800, Miao Wang wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >>> 2026年8月4日 04:46，Corey Minyard <[email protected]> 写道： > >>> > >>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2026 at 12:55:53AM +0800, Miao Wang via B4 Relay wrote: > >>>> From: Miao Wang <[email protected]> > >>>> > >>>> There is no strong dependency between the IPMI driver and its mfd > >>>> driver. Although the IPMI driver will not work without the mfd driver, > >>>> it is not a hard dependency. The IPMI driver can actually be compiled > >>>> without the mfd driver, and it will just fail to probe. When the mfd > >>>> driver is loaded, the IPMI driver will probe successfully. Therefore, > >>>> the dependency of the IPMI driver on its mfd driver should be relaxed > >>>> to "imply" from "select". This will allow the mfd driver to be compiled > >>>> as a module and the IPMI driver to be compiled as a part of the ipmi_si > >>>> module. The adjustment to Kconfig for the mfd driver will be introduced > >>>> in the later patch in this series. > >>> > >>> I don't think that's what "imply" is for. Imply seems to be for if > >>> there is another subsystem that can use this subsystem, but doesn't > >>> require it to exist. > >>> > >>> For instance: > >>> > >>> config SENSORS_NPCM7XX > >>> tristate "Nuvoton NPCM750 and compatible PWM and Fan controllers" > >>> imply THERMAL > >>> > >>> The fan controller will work fine without the thermal subsystem; you > >>> can control the fan speed without it. But the thermal subsystem is the > >>> logical user of this. I looked at many of these things like this. > >>> > >>> In the IPMI case, the IPMI driver is useless without the mfd part. So > >>> there's no point in compiling the IPMI part of this if the mfd part is > >>> not there. > >>> > >>> I could be wrong, but I can't see why you would want to do this. > >> > >> The mfd part and the IPMI part loosely depend on each other. Without the > >> IPMI part, the mfd part can still work to handle the display part. > >> Without the mfd part, the IPMI part is indeed useless, but it will not > >> generate compiling errors or other runtime errors. In the runtime, > >> the IPMI part can be actually loaded earlier than the mfd part. As a > >> result, their dependency is not that strong. > > > > The operational dependency is strong, which is what I think you want to > > convey here. > > > >> > >> The reason why I want to change this is that "select" here requires the > >> mfd part should also be compiled as built-in (i.e. = y), since the > >> type of the configure entry IPMI_LS2K is bool. However, I cannot see > >> there is no other reason preventing the mfd driver from compiling as > >> a module. This patch series will introduce a minor fix, after which > >> the mfd driver will be capable to be compiled as a module. > >> > >> When the type of MFD_LS2K_BMC_CORE is changed to tristate, the "select" > >> here will prevent selecting =m for MFD_LS2K_BMC_CORE. I thus believe > >> that "select" here should be also changed. > >> > >> Any suggestions on declaring the dependency of the both parts? > > > > Ok, I understand now. > > > > Why can't the IPMI part be compiled as a module? Making that > > module-capable would be the right fix, I think. I can't see > > why that wouldn't work. IIRC, it was bool because the mfd part > > was bool. > > I would have agree with you if the IPMI part was a normal driver. > However, the IPMI part is actually a part of ipmi_si. As a result, > the IPMI part can actually be compiled as a module, but as a part > of ipmi_si. That is why the configure entry IPMI_LS2K is bool rather > than tristate. I don't think it is trivial to convert IPMI_LS2K from > bool to tristate.
Yes, you are right it would be non-trivial. It would take some redesign of the ipmi_si module. You are right here, probably not worth it. > > > If you changed to imply, you would need a depends on the mfd core, BTW. > > If imply is used here, and there is "select MFD_CORE" in MFD_LS2K_BMC_CORE, > I think there is no need to add "depends on MFD_CORE" to IPMI_LS2K, if I > understand it correctly. If imply doesn't force MFD_LS2K_BMC_CORE to be selected, then it's not going to force MFD_CORE to be selected. > > I don't insist using imply here, if there is a better way to express the > relation between both drivers. > > > Also, IPMI_LS2K needs a "depends on IPMI_SI" either way. I missed that > > earlier. Could you add that? > > If I understand it correctly, there seems to be no need to add the > dependency from the MFD driver to the driver for the actual sub-functions. > Examples are: There absolutely is. You can select IPMI_LS2K without selecting IPMI_SI. It would compile without it, and it just wouldn't do anything, but it would be confusing to be able to select something and it not do anything. > > - MFD_MENF21BMC and SENSORS_MENF21BMC_HWMON, LEDS_MENF21BMC, > MENF21BMC_WATCHDOG: The later three declared depends on the former MFD > driver > - MFD_INTEL_M10_BMC_CORE and FPGA_M10_BMC_SEC_UPDATE, > SENSORS_INTEL_M10_BMC_HWMON: The later two declared depends on the > former MFD driver. > - MFD_STMFX and PINCTRL_STMFX: The later declared select the former > MFD driver. > > To summarize, as shown in the current mfd drivers, there is no need to > declare dependency to the drivers providing the sub-functions in the > mfd drivers, and the drivers of the sub functions should "depends on" or > "select" the mfd driver. So if IPMI_LS2K could be tristate, then it would > be reasonable to select MFD_LS2K_BMC_CORE or depends on MFD_LS2K_BMC_CORE. > > > Regarding the fact that IPMI_LS2K is bool and it is not an independent > module but a part of ipmi_si, it comes into my mind that we may choose > to adjust the dependency from ipmi_si. That is to remove "select > MFD_LS2K_BMC_CORE" from IPMI_LS2K, and add "select MFD_LS2K_BMC_CORE > if IPMI_LS2K" to IPMI_SI. > > I wonder if such a change would be appropriate. That would be a good solution if it works. Thanks for working with me on this. -corey > > Cheers, > > Miao Wang > _______________________________________________ Openipmi-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
