On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:24 AM John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 4:54 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman > <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 04:53:20AM +0000, John Stultz wrote: > > > Allow the qcom_scm driver to be loadable as a permenent module. > > > > This feels like a regression, it should be allowed to be a module. > > I'm sorry, I'm not sure I'm following you, Greg. This patch is trying > to enable the driver to be able to be loaded as a module. I think the mix up might be that Greg mentally read "permanent module" as "builtin"? "permanent module" is just something that can't be unloaded once it's loaded. It's not "builtin". -Saravana > > > > This still uses the "depends on QCOM_SCM || !QCOM_SCM" bit to > > > ensure that drivers that call into the qcom_scm driver are > > > also built as modules. While not ideal in some cases its the > > > only safe way I can find to avoid build errors without having > > > those drivers select QCOM_SCM and have to force it on (as > > > QCOM_SCM=n can be valid for those drivers). > > > > > > Reviving this now that Saravana's fw_devlink defaults to on, > > > which should avoid loading troubles seen before. > > > > fw_devlink was supposed to resolve these issues and _allow_ code to be > > built as modules and not forced to be built into the kernel. > > Right. I'm re-submitting this patch to enable a driver to work as a > module, because earlier attempts to submit it ran into boot trouble > because fw_devlink wasn't yet enabled. > > I worry something in my description made it seem otherwise, so let me > know how you read it and I'll try to avoid such confusion in the > future. > > thanks > -john
