On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 15:36:52 -0600 Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Hi, > On Tue, Jun 07, 2022 at 04:58:40PM +0000, Yoan Picchi wrote: > > This dependency looks outdated. After the previous patch, we have been able > > to use this driver to encrypt some data and to create working VF on arm64. > > We have not tested it yet on any big endian machine, hence the new dependency > > For the subject, use prefixes matching the subsystem (like you did on > patch 1). > > The only testing obligation you have is compiling for BE. So I just compiled for arm64 BE, powerpc BE & LE, and riscv again: $ file qat_c62xvf.ko qat_c62xvf.ko: ELF 64-bit MSB relocatable, ARM aarch64, version 1 (SYSV), BuildID[sha1]=630cc0ee5586c7aeb6e0ab5567ce2f2f7cc46adf, with debug_info, not stripped qat_c62xvf.ko: ELF 64-bit MSB relocatable, 64-bit PowerPC or cisco 7500, version 1 (SYSV), BuildID[sha1]=4090ba181cf95f27108bf3ecde0776f12ef2b636, not stripped qat_c62xvf.ko: ELF 64-bit LSB relocatable, 64-bit PowerPC or cisco 7500, version 1 (SYSV), BuildID[sha1]=2cb0fd09d5bc36c8918fcd061c9f3dac1546cf0d, not stripped qat_c62xvf.ko: ELF 64-bit LSB relocatable, UCB RISC-V, version 1 (SYSV), BuildID[sha1]=bfaa53df7e9aad79d3ab4c05e75ca9169227f6b8, not stripped All built without errors or warnings, for every of the enabled drivers. > If kconfig was > supposed to capture what endianness drivers have been tested or not > tested with, then lots of drivers are missing the dependency. Kconfig > depends/select entries should generally be either to prevent compile > failures (you checked PPC, RiscV, etc.?) or to hide drivers *really* > specific to a platform. IMO, we should only have !CPU_BIG_ENDIAN if it > is known not to work and not easily fixed. Fair enough, I leave that decision to Giovanni. I have plans to test this with BE, but getting a BE setup on a server is not trivial, both for userland and actual booting, so this will take some time. We just didn't want to block this on some BE concerns. > Also, with the dependency, no one can test the driver without modifying > the kernel and if it does work as-is, then one has to upstream a change > and then wait for it to show up in distro kernels. You could mitigate > the first part with COMPILE_TEST. Yeah, that's a good point, we were already bitten by this, the initial testing was done on a stable distro kernel (v5.4), and it worked fine already there. Cheers, Andre
