Re: thoughts on requiring multi-arch support for arm drm drivers?

[Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>]

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:29:25AM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> 
> On Monday 21 January 2013 09:54:01 Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Sunday 20 January 2013 09:08:34 Rob Clark wrote:
> > >> One thing I've run into in the past when trying to make changes in drm
> > >> core, and Daniel Vetter has mentioned the same, is that it is a bit of
> > >> a pain to compile test things for the arm drivers that do not support
> > >> CONFIG_ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM.  I went through a while back and fixed up
> > >> the low hanging fruit (basically the drivers that just needed a
> > >> Kconfig change).  But, IIRC some of the backlight related code in
> > >> shmob had some non-trivial plat dependencies.
> > > 
> > > I've just compiled the shmob-drm driver without any error on x86_64. The
> > > CMA GEM helpers don't compile due to missing
> > > dma_(alloc|free)_writecombine though (but that would only be an issue if
> > > we require no arch dependency at all, not with multiarch).
> > 
> > ahh, ok.. maybe I should try again.  I'm pretty sure I was hitting
> > some issues around the backlight code before, but maybe that has been
> > fixed since then.
> > 
> > Anyways, if it builds for multi-platform, maybe you could send a patch
> > for the kconfig?
> 
> Do you prefer a dependency on (ARM || SUPERH) or (ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM || 
> SUPERH) ?

I suggest ARM instead of ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM since the former is the real
requirement for being able to compile it.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |