Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 08/11] ASoC: Intel: atom: Make PCI dependency explicit

Pierre-Louis Bossart
2019-01-02T22:50:51Z

> This is pointing to a kconfig issue on ia64 arch.
>
> arch/ia64/Kconfig:128:error: recursive dependency detected!
> arch/ia64/Kconfig:128: choice <choice> contains symbol IA64_HP_SIM
> arch/ia64/Kconfig:202: symbol IA64_HP_SIM is part of choice PM
>
> IA64_HP_SIM is both a choice and is selected.
>
> I did allyesconfig and disabled PCI afterwards to find all the issues
> on this patchset.

Are you saying there's a newer series that fixes this issue for both
allyesconfig and allmodconfig?

if yes, then we're good.

>
>> 2. there are different patterns to express the dependency on PCI e.g.
>>
>> config MMC_SDHCI_ACPI
>> tristate "SDHCI support for ACPI enumerated SDHCI controllers"
>> depends on MMC_SDHCI && ACPI
>> - select IOSF_MBI if X86
>> + select IOSF_MBI if (X86 && PCI)
>>
>> but
>>
>> config SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_ACPI
>> tristate "ACPI HiFi2 (Baytrail, Cherrytrail) Platforms"
>> default ACPI
>> - depends on X86 && ACPI
>> + depends on X86 && ACPI && PCI
>> select SND_SST_IPC_ACPI
>> select SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM
>> select SND_SOC_ACPI_INTEL_MATCH
>>
> I matched depends line to
>
> depends on X86 && ACPI && PCI
>
> for MMC_SDHCI_ACPI per feedback from Rafael on V5. This should resolve
> the inconsistency.
ok, I didn't see the delta
>
>
>> IOSF is only needed for Baytrail-CR detection, and the code will compile
>> fine without it, so maybe it'd be a better model if you used the
>> following diff?
>>
>> diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig b/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig
>> index 2fd1b61e8331..68af0ea5c96c 100644
>> --- a/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig
>> +++ b/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig
>> @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ config SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_ACPI
>> select SND_SST_IPC_ACPI
>> select SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM
>> select SND_SOC_ACPI_INTEL_MATCH
>> - select IOSF_MBI
>> + select IOSF_MBI if PCI
>>
>> 3. All the Intel machine drivers depend on X86_INTEL_LPSS which depends
>> on PCI. But for Baytrail/Haswell/Broadwell we have only a dependency on
>> ACPI, so we expose drivers that can be selected but fail on probe since
>> there are no machine drivers. I am not sure if we want to be strict and
>> only expose meaningful configurations, or allow for more compilations
>> tests and corner cases?
> Hopefully, v5 resolves this too with
>
> depends on X86 && ACPI && PCI
>
> Let me know otherwise.

it doesn't but that's not a good enough reason to lay on the tracks.
I'll follow-up with a cleanup for the Intel audio parts when this series
is merged. The PCI dependency could be moved to the top-level since it's
pretty much required for all platforms except for compilation tests, and
there are multiple dependencies that repeated for no good reason, so FWIW

Acked-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com>