Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 13:48 +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> I believe i2c-designware-baytrail.c doesn't have strict dependency
> that
> Intel SoC IOSF Sideband support must be always built-in in order to
> be
> able to compile support for Intel Baytrail I2C bus sharing HW
> semaphore.
> 
> Redefine build dependencies so that CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y is required
> only
> when CONFIG_I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM is built-in.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula <jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> Hi David. Can you ack/nak this patch as I'm not fully familiar with
> this
> HW semaphore can there be problems when IOSF_MBI is built as a
> module.


> At least I'm getting similar sensible looking "punit semaphore
> acquired/held for x ms" debug messages when I modprobe/rmmod
> i2c_designware_platform independently is the CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y or =m.
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> index 69c46fe13777..76f4d024def0 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> @@ -490,7 +490,9 @@ config I2C_DESIGNWARE_PCI
>  
>  config I2C_DESIGNWARE_BAYTRAIL
>  	bool "Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support"
> -	depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI=y && ACPI
> +	depends on ACPI
> +	depends on (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m && IOSF_MBI) || \
> +		   (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && IOSF_MBI=y)

Would it be more readable in the following way

depends on ACPI
depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM
depends on IOSF_MBI if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m
depends on IOSF_MBI=y if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y

>  	help
>  	  This driver enables managed host access to the PMIC I2C
> bus on select
>  	  Intel BayTrail platforms using the X-Powers AXP288 PMIC.
> It allows

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy