Hi Vinod, On 6/5/2018 10:10 PM, Vinod Koul wrote: > On 05-06-18, 18:26, Sricharan R wrote: >> Hi Vinod, >> >> On 6/5/2018 11:49 AM, Vinod wrote: >>> On 05-06-18, 11:12, Sricharan R wrote: >>> >>>> +config QCOM_Q6V5_WCSS >>>> + tristate "Qualcomm Hexagon based WCSS Peripheral Image Loader" >>>> + depends on OF && ARCH_QCOM >>>> + depends on QCOM_SMEM >>>> + depends on RPMSG_QCOM_SMD || (COMPILE_TEST && RPMSG_QCOM_SMD=n) >>>> + depends on RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM || RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n >>> >>> Is there a reason why it depends on RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n? What would >>> happen if distro wants both this and RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM >>> >> RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n should be for the COMPILE_TEST. Probably that > > why would that be a limitation? I am more worried about > RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n being the condition here. In new drivers we > should not typically have dependency on some symbol being not there > Without that, if RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=m is compiled as a module, then it would break the build. >> means that it should be corrected here and for ADSP, Q6V5_PIL as well. >> Bjorn, is that correct ?, should it be, below ? >> >> depends on (RPMSG_QCOM_SMD || (COMPILE_TEST && RPMSG_QCOM_SMD=n)) || (RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM || (COMPILE_TEST && RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n)) > > that doesnt really sound good :( > Hmm, but i was thinking it should functionally depend on either SMD or GLINK and not both. Regards, Sricharan -- "QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
