From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 8/8] PCC: Enable PCC only when needed Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 09:59:19 +0100 Message-ID: <55AF5B67.4030101@arm.com> References: <55AE652B.7030409@arm.com> <1583446.GxfV2z2IW5@vostro.rjw.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:34874 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932424AbbGVI7X (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jul 2015 04:59:23 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1583446.GxfV2z2IW5@vostro.rjw.lan> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Sudeep Holla , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ashwin Chaugule , "jaswinder.singh@linaro.org" , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" , "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" , "patches@linaro.org" , "viresh.kumar@linaro.org" On 22/07/15 02:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 04:28:43 PM Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Hi Rafael, >> >> On 21/07/15 15:34, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: >>> Hi Sudeep, >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 20/07/15 23:04, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: [..] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No. The other client will need to select PCC too. >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes the PCC users/clients selecting PCC is fine and that's already >>>> done(i.e. ACPI_CPPC_LIB selects PCC). I still don't understand the need >>>> for this change, also how will other clients possibly select PCC which >>>> now depends on CPPC_LIB ? e.g. if we have >>>> >>>> config ACPI_XYZ_LIB >>>> select PCC >>>> >>>> config ACPI_XYZ >>>> select ACPI_XYZ_LIB >>>> >>>> Won't this shout warning: (ACPI_XYZ_LIB && ACPI_CPPC_LIB) selects PCC >>>> which has unmet direct dependencies (MAILBOX && ACPI && ACPI_CPPC_LIB) >>>> if ACPI_CPPC_LIB is not selected ? >>> >>> That depends on the "depends on" clauses used. Selecting itself >>> doesn't cause any dependencies to appear. >>> >> >> Agreed and I am absolutely fine with that. But if you look at this >> patch, it does >> >> config PCC >> bool "Platform Communication Channel Driver" >> depends on ACPI && ACPI_CPPC_LIB > > My bad, I've evidently overlooked that. > > If PPC is selected from ACPI_CPPC_LIB, the "depends on" above is > obviously not needed. > Thanks for the confirmation. >> I am fine with ACPI_CPPC_LIB selecting PCC which is already done in >> earlier patch. I am against making PCC depend on ACPI_CPPC_LIB. > > OK, makes sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding. > It's okay, I just wanted to make sure that I am not missing to understand some kind of dependency. Regards, Sudeep