On 16.04.2019 01:24, Life is hard, and then you die wrote: > Hi Andrzej, > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:58:09AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote: >> On 15.04.2019 10:12, Ronald Tschalär wrote: >>> commit d6abe6df706c (drm/bridge: sil_sii8620: do not have a dependency >>> of RC_CORE) changed the driver to select both RC_CORE and INPUT. >>> However, this causes problems with other drivers, in particular an input >>> driver that depends on MFD_INTEL_LPSS_PCI (to be added in a separate >>> commit): >>> >>> drivers/clk/Kconfig:9:error: recursive dependency detected! >>> drivers/clk/Kconfig:9: symbol COMMON_CLK is selected by MFD_INTEL_LPSS >>> drivers/mfd/Kconfig:566: symbol MFD_INTEL_LPSS is selected by MFD_INTEL_LPSS_PCI >>> drivers/mfd/Kconfig:580: symbol MFD_INTEL_LPSS_PCI is implied by KEYBOARD_APPLESPI >>> drivers/input/keyboard/Kconfig:73: symbol KEYBOARD_APPLESPI depends on INPUT >>> drivers/input/Kconfig:8: symbol INPUT is selected by DRM_SIL_SII8620 >>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Kconfig:83: symbol DRM_SIL_SII8620 depends on DRM_BRIDGE >>> drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Kconfig:1: symbol DRM_BRIDGE is selected by DRM_PL111 >>> drivers/gpu/drm/pl111/Kconfig:1: symbol DRM_PL111 depends on COMMON_CLK >>> >>> According to the docs and general consensus, select should only be used >>> for non user-visible symbols, but both RC_CORE and INPUT are >>> user-visible. Furthermore almost all other references to INPUT >>> throughout the kernel config are depends, not selects. For this reason >>> the first part of this change reverts commit d6abe6df706c. >>> >>> In order to address the original reason for commit d6abe6df706c, namely >>> that not all boards use the remote controller functionality and hence >>> should not need have to deal with RC_CORE, the second part of this >>> change now makes the remote control support in the driver optional and >>> contingent on RC_CORE being defined. And with this the hard dependency >>> on INPUT also goes away as that is only needed if RC_CORE is defined >>> (which in turn already depends on INPUT). >>> >>> CC: Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> CC: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> CC: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> CC: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Ronald Tschalär <ronald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Reviewed-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Thanks for your reviews! > >> If there are no objections I will take it to drm-misc tomorrow. > This brings us back to the discussion started in response to the first > version of my patch (see > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190124082423.23139-1-ronald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#m24f45fecd987a787a9554c8088f463fd10de2b00). > To recap: the problem is that the applespi patch depends on this patch > here, as make-config will break as described above otherwise. So if > this patch is submitted through drm-misc, then it's unclear to me how > to ensure that the two patches make it upstream in proper order, > unless the applespi patch is also upstreamed through drm-misc, or the > Kconfig for applespi is (temporarily) modified to not trigger the > config error and another patch is later submitted to fix the Kconfig > again (which seems somewhat ugly to me). Assuming that consensus is to > merge both patches through one tree, then it would seem that because > this patch here is relatively small that maybe it could be merged > through the input tree along with the applespi patch? Oh, I have forgot. Please take it then via input tree. Regards Andrzej > > > Cheers, > > Ronald > > >
