[PATCH] drm/xe/vsec: fix CONFIG_INTEL_VSEC dependency

[Christopher Snowhill]

On Wed May 28, 2025 at 3:03 AM PDT, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2025, at 11:34, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, May 27, 2025 at 03:55:46PM -0500, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 02:10:46PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> > +	depends on INTEL_PLATFORM_DEVICES || !(X86 && ACPI)
>>> 
>>> 		   ^
>>> Did you mean X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES here?
>
> Yes, my mistake.
>
>> Why do we need to depend on the whole thingy (yes, it will be enabled at the
>> end) if we only talking about Intel?
>
> I don't understand what you mean with 'the whole thing'. My change
> changed the existing 'select X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES if X86 && ACPI'
> into the corresponding dependency, in order to change it the
> least.
>
> The dependency itself is needed because of
>
>        select ACPI_WMI if X86 && ACPI
>
> and this in turn is needed for
>
>        select ACPI_VIDEO if X86 && ACPI
>
>>> With that, Reviewed-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
>>> 
>>> I see several drivers selecting
>>> X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES though. Maybe they should also be translated to
>>> dependencies instead?
>>
>> I think so, selecting that sounds wrong.
>
> Agreed. Overall, what I'd really like to see is to remove
> all those 'select' of drivers from other subsystems. I think
> ACPI_VIDEO is at the center here, and changing all the
> 'select ACPI_VIDEO if ACPI' instances to
> 'depends on ACPI_VIDEO || !ACPI_VIDEO' would solve a lot of

Maybe you meant 'depends on ACPI_VIDEO || !ACPI' ?

> the recurring dependency loop problems in drivers/gpu/.
>
> Actually doing it without regressions is going to be
> nontrivial though, because any change in this area is likely
> to trigger another dependency loop somewhere.
>
>      Arnd