Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] media: coda: use genalloc API

[Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>]

Am Freitag, den 16.11.2012, 11:00 -0500 schrieb Paul Gortmaker:
> On 12-11-16 10:21 AM, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 16.11.2012, 10:08 -0500 schrieb Paul Gortmaker:
> >> On 12-11-16 05:30 AM, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> >>> This patch depends on "genalloc: add a global pool list,
> >>> allow to find pools by phys address", which provides the
> >>> of_get_named_gen_pool function.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
> >>> ---
> >>>  drivers/media/platform/Kconfig |    3 +--
> >>>  drivers/media/platform/coda.c  |   47 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> >>>  2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/Kconfig b/drivers/media/platform/Kconfig
> >>> index 181c768..09d45c6 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/Kconfig
> >>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/Kconfig
> >>> @@ -130,10 +130,9 @@ if V4L_MEM2MEM_DRIVERS
> >>>  
> >>>  config VIDEO_CODA
> >>>  	tristate "Chips&Media Coda multi-standard codec IP"
> >>> -	depends on VIDEO_DEV && VIDEO_V4L2 && ARCH_MXC
> >>> +	depends on VIDEO_DEV && VIDEO_V4L2
> >>
> >> What was the logic for reducing the dependency scope here?
> >> Your commit log doesn't mention that at all, and when I see
> >> things like that, I predict allyesconfig build failures,
> >> unless there is a similar dependency elsewhere that isn't
> >> visible in just the context of this patch alone.
> >>
> >> P.
> > 
> > iram_alloc and iram_free are i.MX specific wrappers around
> > gen_pool_alloc and gen_pool_free, located in <mach/iram.h>.
> > Those were responsible for the dependency in the first place.
> 
> So when I do an allyesconfig for sparc, or parisc or alpha,
> and VIDEO_CODA gets selected, it will build just fine then?

I don't know, as I don't have compilers for those available right now.
I'd like to know if it doesn't, though. It builds fine on x86 and mips,
for example.

> My point was that when you remove the ARCH_MXC dep, this
> probably gets opened up as a viable option to a _lot_ more
> platforms than you might want it exposed to.

I don't see the problem. Isn't this a good thing?

regards
Philipp