On 12/10/2015 02:59 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
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
For my eyes it looks a bit more complex but I think it's matter of
taste. However, the syntax you are proposing is not supported for
"depends on" like it is for "select" statements.
--
Jarkko
--
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
