Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:56:27PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> 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.

Any news? David?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Hardward Monitoring]     [LM Sensors]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Media]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux