From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>
To: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
Daniel Drake <drake@endlessm.com>,
Harsha Priya N <harshapriya.n@intel.com>,
Naveen M <naveen.m@intel.com>, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RESEND] ASoC: Intel: atom: fix ACPI/PCI Kconfig
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 20:15:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <s5hefj3up8x.wl-tiwai@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180402170614.5599-1-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>
On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 19:06:14 +0200,
Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
>
> The split between ACPI and PCI platforms generated issues with randconfig:
>
> with SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_PCI=y and
> SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM=m, we get this module link failure:
>
> ERROR: "sst_context_init"
> [sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/snd-intel-sst-acpi.ko] undefined!
>
> ERROR: "sst_context_cleanup"
> [sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/snd-intel-sst-acpi.ko] undefined!
>
> ERROR: "sst_alloc_drv_context"
> [sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/snd-intel-sst-acpi.ko] undefined!
>
> ERROR: "intel_sst_pm" [sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/snd-intel-sst-acpi.ko]
> undefined!
>
> ERROR: "sst_configure_runtime_pm"
> [sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/snd-intel-sst-acpi.ko] undefined!
>
> To keep things simple, let's expose two configs for
> SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_PCI and SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_ACPI,
> which select a common SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM option. To avoid
> breaking existing solutions with the semantics change,
> SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_ACPI uses "default ACPI" so that "make
> oldnoconfig" and "make olddefconfig" still work as expected.
So now it reached to my tree, and noticed this "default ACPI".
After reading the patch description, I understand the reason behind
it, but still I'd say this would confuse users. For example, I was
quite surprised and almost proceeded to build this unnecessary just
because of the expectation to be default "N" in a standard config.
The distros would enable in anyway, so you don't have to care much.
The question is which target should we satisfy more: users who don't
need to turn this on, or users who need this. In probability, I'd bet
the former :)
Takashi
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-25 18:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-02 17:06 [PATCH][RESEND] ASoC: Intel: atom: fix ACPI/PCI Kconfig Pierre-Louis Bossart
2018-04-02 17:28 ` Andy Shevchenko
2018-04-03 4:55 ` Vinod Koul
2018-04-06 20:05 ` Sasha Levin
2018-04-25 18:15 ` Takashi Iwai [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=s5hefj3up8x.wl-tiwai@suse.de \
--to=tiwai@suse.de \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=drake@endlessm.com \
--cc=harshapriya.n@intel.com \
--cc=liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=naveen.m@intel.com \
--cc=pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vinod.koul@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox