In particular, it does not prevent a configuration with 'DRM_CMA=m'
I assume you meant "DRM_CMA=n" ? DRM_CMA cannot be built as a module.
Ok, at least that makes it easier.
and 'DRMA_ASPEED_GFX=y', or any build failures from such
a configuration.
I don't follow. "DRM_CMA=n" and 'DRMA_ASPEED_GFX=y' is supposed to work
just fine (e.g., without HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS) or what am I missing?
I thought you were trying to solve the problem where DRMA_ASPEED_GFX
can optionally link against CMA but would fail to build when the CMA code
is in a loadable module.
Yes. I was trying to say: it works with this patch just fine. The issue
you described does not seem to apply (DRM_CMA=m).
Your example looks more like a NOP - no?
Or will it have the same effect?
The example I gave is only meaningful if both are tristate, which is
not the case here as you explain.
Okay, thanks.
It is a somewhat awkward way to say "prevent this symbol from
being =y if the dependency is =m".
What would be the right thing to do in the case here then to achieve the
"if DRMA_ASPEED_GFX is enabled, also enable DMA_CMA id possible"?
One approach could be to have for DMA_CMA
default y if DRMA_ASPEED_GFX
but it feels like the wrong way to tackle this.
Thanks!
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
