[PATCH] dmaengine: ARM_DMA350 should depend on ARM/ARM64

[Vinod Koul]

On 23-04-25, 14:13, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
> 
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 at 13:48, Vinod Koul <vkoul at kernel.org> wrote:
> > On 23-04-25, 13:11, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 at 12:59, Robin Murphy <robin.murphy at arm.com> wrote:
> > > > On 2025-04-22 7:11 pm, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > The Arm DMA-350 controller is only present on Arm-based SoCs.
> > > >
> > > > Do you know that for sure? I certainly don't. This is a licensable,
> > > > self-contained DMA controller IP with no relationship whatsoever to any
> > > > particular CPU ISA - our other system IP products have turned up in the
> > > > wild paired with non-Arm CPUs, so I don't see any reason that DMA-350
> > > > wouldn't either.
> > >
> > > The dependency can always be relaxed later, when the need arises.
> > > Note that currently there are no users at all...
> >
> > True, but do we have any warnings generated as a result, if there are no
> > dependency should we still limit a driver to an arch?
> 
> I am not aware of any warnings (I built it on MIPS yesterday ;-).
> It is just one more question that pops up during "make oldconfig",
> and Linus may notice and complain, too...

True, give there are no users, lets pick this and drop if we get a non
arm user

-- 
~Vinod