Hi Sudeep, On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 20/07/15 23:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >> >> On Monday, July 20, 2015 03:22:37 PM Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 09/07/15 19:04, Ashwin Chaugule wrote: >>>> >>>> CPPC is the first client to make use of the PCC Mailbox channel. So >>>> enable it only when CPPC is also enabled. >>>> >>> This sounds like a reverse dependency to me. So if there's some client >>> unrelated to CPPC using PCC, CPPC_LIB needs to be selected to enable PCC >>> ? >> >> >> No. The other client will need to select PCC too. > > > Yes the PCC users/clients selecting PCC is fine and that's already > done(i.e. ACPI_CPPC_LIB selects PCC). I still don't understand the need > for this change, also how will other clients possibly select PCC which > now depends on CPPC_LIB ? e.g. if we have > > config ACPI_XYZ_LIB > select PCC > > config ACPI_XYZ > select ACPI_XYZ_LIB > > Won't this shout warning: (ACPI_XYZ_LIB && ACPI_CPPC_LIB) selects PCC > which has unmet direct dependencies (MAILBOX && ACPI && ACPI_CPPC_LIB) > if ACPI_CPPC_LIB is not selected ? That depends on the "depends on" clauses used. Selecting itself doesn't cause any dependencies to appear. > OK, for now we enable ACPI_CPPC_LIB on ARM64 and not on x86. When x86 > has a PCC client how will that select PCC without ACPI_CPPC_LIB. Sorry > if I am missing to understand something. Presumably, the new feature will have a Kconfig option associated with it and it will do "select PCC" too. >> >> I requested that change, because I'm slightly bothered by the fact that we >> build code used by no one by default. >> > > I understand, but will keeping them default off should suffice ? No ? Yes, it should. But is it the case now? Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
