On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 13:48 +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote: > I believe i2c-designware-baytrail.c doesn't have strict dependency > that > Intel SoC IOSF Sideband support must be always built-in in order to > be > able to compile support for Intel Baytrail I2C bus sharing HW > semaphore. > > Redefine build dependencies so that CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y is required > only > when CONFIG_I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM is built-in. > > Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Hi David. Can you ack/nak this patch as I'm not fully familiar with > this > HW semaphore can there be problems when IOSF_MBI is built as a > module. > At least I'm getting similar sensible looking "punit semaphore > acquired/held for x ms" debug messages when I modprobe/rmmod > i2c_designware_platform independently is the CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y or =m. > --- > drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig > index 69c46fe13777..76f4d024def0 100644 > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig > @@ -490,7 +490,9 @@ config I2C_DESIGNWARE_PCI > > config I2C_DESIGNWARE_BAYTRAIL > bool "Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support" > - depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI=y && ACPI > + depends on ACPI > + depends on (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m && IOSF_MBI) || \ > + (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && IOSF_MBI=y) Would it be more readable in the following way depends on ACPI depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM depends on IOSF_MBI if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m depends on IOSF_MBI=y if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y > help > This driver enables managed host access to the PMIC I2C > bus on select > Intel BayTrail platforms using the X-Powers AXP288 PMIC. > It allows -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
