[PATCH] OMAPDSS: enable omapdss for ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM

[PATCH] OMAPDSS: enable omapdss for ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM

[Rob Clark]

At least core omapdss does not have any build dependencies on
ARCH_OMAP2PLUS, and adding this dependency in the Kconfig breaks omapdrm
for ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM builds.

Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/video/omap2/Kconfig | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/video/omap2/Kconfig b/drivers/video/omap2/Kconfig
index b07b2b0..011e549 100644
--- a/drivers/video/omap2/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/video/omap2/Kconfig
@@ -1,9 +1,14 @@
 config OMAP2_VRFB
 	bool
 
-if ARCH_OMAP2PLUS
+if ARCH_OMAP2PLUS || ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM
 
 source "drivers/video/omap2/dss/Kconfig"
+
+endif
+
+if ARCH_OMAP2PLUS
+
 source "drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/Kconfig"
 source "drivers/video/omap2/displays/Kconfig"
 
-- 
1.8.1

[PATCH] OMAPDSS: enable omapdss for ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tuesday 22 January 2013, Rob Clark wrote:
> At least core omapdss does not have any build dependencies on
> ARCH_OMAP2PLUS, and adding this dependency in the Kconfig breaks omapdrm
> for ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM builds.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

[PATCH] OMAPDSS: enable omapdss for ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tuesday 22 January 2013, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 January 2013, Rob Clark wrote:
> > At least core omapdss does not have any build dependencies on
> > ARCH_OMAP2PLUS, and adding this dependency in the Kconfig breaks omapdrm
> > for ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM builds.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
> 
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>

It seems nobody has applied this patch, as it has not shown up in
linux-next or upstream. Who should take care of this? If nobody feels
responsible, I can put it into arm-soc/fixes.

	Arnd

[PATCH] OMAPDSS: enable omapdss for ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM

[Tomi Valkeinen]

Hi Arnd, Rob,

On 2013-02-05 18:31, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 January 2013, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tuesday 22 January 2013, Rob Clark wrote:
>>> At least core omapdss does not have any build dependencies on
>>> ARCH_OMAP2PLUS, and adding this dependency in the Kconfig breaks omapdrm
>>> for ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM builds.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>
>>
>> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> 
> It seems nobody has applied this patch, as it has not shown up in
> linux-next or upstream. Who should take care of this? If nobody feels
> responsible, I can put it into arm-soc/fixes.

That would normally be me, but I've been on a long leave, and just came
back. It'll take me some time to get back on track.

I don't think it makes sense to add ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM only for omapdss,
like this patch does. I think we should add it for omapfb and the panel
drivers also.

I did get a report of an omapdss build-break with allyesconfig. It seems
to happen because omapdrm and omap_vout use "select" to enable omapdss,
instead of depending on omapdss. This causes an illegal config to be
created. Perhaps this is the problem that Rob mentions in his patch?

Adding ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM for omapdss, as this patch does, removes
(well, hides) the above mentioned problem and allyesconfig works ok. You
can still break the config, but you need to manually select the Kconfig
options the wrong way.

I have patches to add the ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM for omapdss, and to fix the
omap_vout and omapdrm Kconfig files. Each of them changes only one line.
Arnd, are you ok with queuing those patches via arm-soc/fixes? Or should
I send them individually to respective maintainers?

I can send the patches properly for review, but I've also attached them
here so Rob can test.

 Tomi

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-OMAPDSS-add-support-for-ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1019 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130206/6eef4ee4/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0002-omap_vout-fix-the-dependency-on-OMAPDSS.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1211 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130206/6eef4ee4/attachment-0001.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0003-omapdrm-fix-the-dependency-on-OMAPDSS.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1097 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130206/6eef4ee4/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 899 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130206/6eef4ee4/attachment.sig>

[PATCH] OMAPDSS: enable omapdss for ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wednesday 06 February 2013 16:15:57 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> 
> That would normally be me, but I've been on a long leave, and just came
> back. It'll take me some time to get back on track.
> 
> I don't think it makes sense to add ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM only for omapdss,
> like this patch does. I think we should add it for omapfb and the panel
> drivers also.
> 
> I did get a report of an omapdss build-break with allyesconfig. It seems
> to happen because omapdrm and omap_vout use "select" to enable omapdss,
> instead of depending on omapdss. This causes an illegal config to be
> created. Perhaps this is the problem that Rob mentions in his patch?

Yes, that is the one. It is one of three remaining build errors
we get for ARM allyesconfig, and the other two also have fixes
on their way into 3.8.

> Adding ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM for omapdss, as this patch does, removes
> (well, hides) the above mentioned problem and allyesconfig works ok. You
> can still break the config, but you need to manually select the Kconfig
> options the wrong way.
> 
> I have patches to add the ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM for omapdss, and to fix the
> omap_vout and omapdrm Kconfig files. Each of them changes only one line.
> Arnd, are you ok with queuing those patches via arm-soc/fixes? Or should
> I send them individually to respective maintainers?
>
> I can send the patches properly for review, but I've also attached them
> here so Rob can test.

The second and third attachment in your mail seem to contain identical
patches. I suggested a similar patch myself, but Rob thought his
version was nicer to give better build coverage. We only need either
Rob's patch or yours, but not both, as far as I can tell.

Olof can correct me, but I think we currently don't have any other
patches queued in arm-soc for 3.8 (after Linus announced he did
not want any of the less urgent ones), so I think it would be more
fitting if you send one of the patches to Linus, rather than having
an arm-soc pull request that only contains one patch in your domain.

	Arnd

[PATCH] OMAPDSS: enable omapdss for ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM

[Tomi Valkeinen]

On 2013-02-06 16:29, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 February 2013 16:15:57 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:

>> I have patches to add the ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM for omapdss, and to fix the
>> omap_vout and omapdrm Kconfig files. Each of them changes only one line.
>> Arnd, are you ok with queuing those patches via arm-soc/fixes? Or should
>> I send them individually to respective maintainers?
>>
>> I can send the patches properly for review, but I've also attached them
>> here so Rob can test.
> 
> The second and third attachment in your mail seem to contain identical
> patches. I suggested a similar patch myself, but Rob thought his

Hmm? They look different to me...
0002-omap_vout-fix-the-dependency-on-OMAPDSS.patch fixes the dependency
for omap_vout, 0003-omapdrm-fix-the-dependency-on-OMAPDSS.patch for omapdrm.

> version was nicer to give better build coverage. We only need either
> Rob's patch or yours, but not both, as far as I can tell.

I read the related posts, but I'm a bit confused here. Let me summarize
what has happened and what are the issues:

I changed omapdss, omapfb and omap panel drivers to be platform
independent, and after that they compiled fine on OMAP and x86, and
should compile fine on any other platform as well. I thus removed the
Kconfig build dependencies for OMAP. This is what I sent for 3.8 merge
window.

However, Linus complained that now he's getting asked if he wants to
enable omapdss driver when he's building x86 kernel. So Tony made a
patch that added the ARCH_OMAP2PLUS dependency to omapdss (and some
other omap drivers), which went in.

Now, if I'm not mistaken, Rob then added possibility to build omapdrm on
ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM. No problem with that as such, but omapdrm's Kconfig
uses select to enable omapdss, which does not work. omapdss was not made
to work with others using "select" to enable it, but one should "depend
on" to it.

This caused omapdss to be enabled partially when omapdrm is enabled on
ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, causing build failure.

So the real fix to the issue is the 0003 patch, which changes omapdrm to
use "depend on", not "select". However, adding only that patch will
prevent omapdrm to be built on ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, as omapdss is not
enabled on ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM. That one can be enabled with the 0001 patch.

Adding only 0001 patch will also "fix" the build issue, as then omapdss
is properly enabled on allyesconfig ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM build, even if
omapdrm erroneously uses select to enable omapdss. However, adding only
0001 will still allow the user to manually break the build by disabling
omapdss (I think, I didn't test that).

The difference between my 0001 patch and Rob's patch is that Rob only
enables omapdss to be built on ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, leaving omapfb and
omap panel drivers out. Leaving omapfb is not an issue, but if the panel
drivers are left out, I don't see how omapdrm can function properly,
even if compilation works fine.

> Olof can correct me, but I think we currently don't have any other
> patches queued in arm-soc for 3.8 (after Linus announced he did
> not want any of the less urgent ones), so I think it would be more
> fitting if you send one of the patches to Linus, rather than having
> an arm-soc pull request that only contains one patch in your domain.

Ok, I'll do that. I'm still not sure if I should send only the 0001
patch, or all three. I guess I'll go for all three if nobody objects.

Rob, can you test the patches so we're sure they do what they are
supposed to?

 Tomi


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 899 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130207/6de2fb3e/attachment.sig>

[PATCH] OMAPDSS: enable omapdss for ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 07 February 2013, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 2013-02-06 16:29, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 06 February 2013 16:15:57 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> 
> >> I have patches to add the ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM for omapdss, and to fix the
> >> omap_vout and omapdrm Kconfig files. Each of them changes only one line.
> >> Arnd, are you ok with queuing those patches via arm-soc/fixes? Or should
> >> I send them individually to respective maintainers?
> >>
> >> I can send the patches properly for review, but I've also attached them
> >> here so Rob can test.
> > 
> > The second and third attachment in your mail seem to contain identical
> > patches. I suggested a similar patch myself, but Rob thought his
> 
> Hmm? They look different to me...
> 0002-omap_vout-fix-the-dependency-on-OMAPDSS.patch fixes the dependency
> for omap_vout, 0003-omapdrm-fix-the-dependency-on-OMAPDSS.patch for omapdrm.

Right, my mistake.

> > version was nicer to give better build coverage. We only need either
> > Rob's patch or yours, but not both, as far as I can tell.
> 
> I read the related posts, but I'm a bit confused here. Let me summarize
> what has happened and what are the issues:
> 
> I changed omapdss, omapfb and omap panel drivers to be platform
> independent, and after that they compiled fine on OMAP and x86, and
> should compile fine on any other platform as well. I thus removed the
> Kconfig build dependencies for OMAP. This is what I sent for 3.8 merge
> window.
> 
> However, Linus complained that now he's getting asked if he wants to
> enable omapdss driver when he's building x86 kernel. So Tony made a
> patch that added the ARCH_OMAP2PLUS dependency to omapdss (and some
> other omap drivers), which went in.
> 
> Now, if I'm not mistaken, Rob then added possibility to build omapdrm on
> ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM. No problem with that as such, but omapdrm's Kconfig
> uses select to enable omapdss, which does not work. omapdss was not made
> to work with others using "select" to enable it, but one should "depend
> on" to it.
> 
> This caused omapdss to be enabled partially when omapdrm is enabled on
> ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, causing build failure.

All correct, yes.

> So the real fix to the issue is the 0003 patch, which changes omapdrm to
> use "depend on", not "select". However, adding only that patch will
> prevent omapdrm to be built on ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, as omapdss is not
> enabled on ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM. That one can be enabled with the 0001 patch.
> 
> Adding only 0001 patch will also "fix" the build issue, as then omapdss
> is properly enabled on allyesconfig ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM build, even if
> omapdrm erroneously uses select to enable omapdss. However, adding only
> 0001 will still allow the user to manually break the build by disabling
> omapdss (I think, I didn't test that).

omapdrm still has the 'select' statement in it if you only send the
first patch, so it should not be possible to disable omapdss when
it is actually needed.

> The difference between my 0001 patch and Rob's patch is that Rob only
> enables omapdss to be built on ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, leaving omapfb and
> omap panel drivers out. Leaving omapfb is not an issue, but if the panel
> drivers are left out, I don't see how omapdrm can function properly,
> even if compilation works fine.

I suggested doing only the minimum that is needed to unbreak the
allyesconfig build, which is to enable just omapdss but not omapfb
and the displays, in case they don't actually build on anything else.

> > Olof can correct me, but I think we currently don't have any other
> > patches queued in arm-soc for 3.8 (after Linus announced he did
> > not want any of the less urgent ones), so I think it would be more
> > fitting if you send one of the patches to Linus, rather than having
> > an arm-soc pull request that only contains one patch in your domain.
> 
> Ok, I'll do that. I'm still not sure if I should send only the 0001
> patch, or all three. I guess I'll go for all three if nobody objects.
> 
> Rob, can you test the patches so we're sure they do what they are
> supposed to?

I would suggest only the first patch, since Linus quite specifically
asked only for serious bug fixes. I think an allyesconfig build
breakage is serious enough, but doing multiple patches for one
bug should not be necessary and is much harder to justify.

	Arnd

[PATCH] OMAPDSS: enable omapdss for ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM

[Tomi Valkeinen]

On 2013-02-07 13:55, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> omapdrm still has the 'select' statement in it if you only send the
> first patch, so it should not be possible to disable omapdss when
> it is actually needed.

Yes, you're right. After adding ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, the kconfig enables
omapdss fully even if enabled by select. So select is only a problem if
omapdss is enabled when omapdss's dependencies are missing.

> I suggested doing only the minimum that is needed to unbreak the
> allyesconfig build, which is to enable just omapdss but not omapfb
> and the displays, in case they don't actually build on anything else.

omapfb and the displays build also fine on all platforms. But it's true
that they are not needed to fix allyesconfig.

> I would suggest only the first patch, since Linus quite specifically
> asked only for serious bug fixes. I think an allyesconfig build
> breakage is serious enough, but doing multiple patches for one
> bug should not be necessary and is much harder to justify.

Well, as I see, the bug is omapdrm using "select", not "depends on". So
if I'd have to pick one patch, I'd send 0003. That would fix allyesconfig.

Applying only 0003 means that omapdrm (and omapdss) won't be built on
ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, but building omapdrm on ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM is a
feature added in this merge window, so leaving it out is not a regression.

But I'm not sure if I'm being overly pedantic here. Patch 0001 would fix
allyesconfig, and allow building omapdrm with ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM.
However, the fixing there happens as a side effect, and so the 0001
patch isn't even called a "fix" in its subject. That's the reason I'm a
bit reluctant with the 0001 patch as a fix.

 Tomi


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 899 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20130207/8ad26331/attachment.sig>

[PATCH] OMAPDSS: enable omapdss for ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 07 February 2013, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> > I would suggest only the first patch, since Linus quite specifically
> > asked only for serious bug fixes. I think an allyesconfig build
> > breakage is serious enough, but doing multiple patches for one
> > bug should not be necessary and is much harder to justify.
> 
> Well, as I see, the bug is omapdrm using "select", not "depends on". So
> if I'd have to pick one patch, I'd send 0003. That would fix allyesconfig.
> 
> Applying only 0003 means that omapdrm (and omapdss) won't be built on
> ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, but building omapdrm on ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM is a
> feature added in this merge window, so leaving it out is not a regression.
> 
> But I'm not sure if I'm being overly pedantic here. Patch 0001 would fix
> allyesconfig, and allow building omapdrm with ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM.
> However, the fixing there happens as a side effect, and so the 0001
> patch isn't even called a "fix" in its subject. That's the reason I'm a
> bit reluctant with the 0001 patch as a fix.

Makes sense. I suggested the same initially, but Rob preferred enabling
DSS on multiplatform as well, since he wants to see broad build coverage
for the DRM part. We should probably do that in 3.9, but for 3.8,
just changing DRM to depend on DSS seems like the least intrusive
choice.

	Arnd