From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarkko Nikula Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:56:27 +0200 Message-ID: <5669848B.2090502@linux.intel.com> References: <1449748124-20744-1-git-send-email-jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com> <1449748124-20744-2-git-send-email-jarkko.nikula@linux.intel.com> <1449752378.30729.89.camel@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:35536 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751312AbbLJN7E (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:59:04 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1449752378.30729.89.camel@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Shevchenko , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Cc: Wolfram Sang , Mika Westerberg , David Box On 12/10/2015 02:59 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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 >> --- >> 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 > For my eyes it looks a bit more complex but I think it's matter of taste. However, the syntax you are proposing is not supported for "depends on" like it is for "select" statements. -- Jarkko