On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 8:33 PM Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I have three opens with this ACPI/PCI change > > 1. the baseline change fails on my cross-compilation checks, see below > the result of the attached script (simplification of the one I use to > avoid 0day reports). > This is pointing to a kconfig issue on ia64 arch. arch/ia64/Kconfig:128:error: recursive dependency detected! arch/ia64/Kconfig:128: choice <choice> contains symbol IA64_HP_SIM arch/ia64/Kconfig:202: symbol IA64_HP_SIM is part of choice PM IA64_HP_SIM is both a choice and is selected. I did allyesconfig and disabled PCI afterwards to find all the issues on this patchset. > 2. there are different patterns to express the dependency on PCI e.g. > > config MMC_SDHCI_ACPI > tristate "SDHCI support for ACPI enumerated SDHCI controllers" > depends on MMC_SDHCI && ACPI > - select IOSF_MBI if X86 > + select IOSF_MBI if (X86 && PCI) > > but > > config SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_ACPI > tristate "ACPI HiFi2 (Baytrail, Cherrytrail) Platforms" > default ACPI > - depends on X86 && ACPI > + depends on X86 && ACPI && PCI > select SND_SST_IPC_ACPI > select SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM > select SND_SOC_ACPI_INTEL_MATCH > I matched depends line to depends on X86 && ACPI && PCI for MMC_SDHCI_ACPI per feedback from Rafael on V5. This should resolve the inconsistency. > IOSF is only needed for Baytrail-CR detection, and the code will compile > fine without it, so maybe it'd be a better model if you used the > following diff? > > diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig b/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig > index 2fd1b61e8331..68af0ea5c96c 100644 > --- a/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig > +++ b/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig > @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ config SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_ACPI > select SND_SST_IPC_ACPI > select SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM > select SND_SOC_ACPI_INTEL_MATCH > - select IOSF_MBI > + select IOSF_MBI if PCI > > 3. All the Intel machine drivers depend on X86_INTEL_LPSS which depends > on PCI. But for Baytrail/Haswell/Broadwell we have only a dependency on > ACPI, so we expose drivers that can be selected but fail on probe since > there are no machine drivers. I am not sure if we want to be strict and > only expose meaningful configurations, or allow for more compilations > tests and corner cases? Hopefully, v5 resolves this too with depends on X86 && ACPI && PCI Let me know otherwise. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
