pm-core: recursive dependency on config

pm-core: recursive dependency on config

[Menon, Nishanth]

Folks,
Dumb question:
Some one seen this one? is there a patch in the pipe for the fix?

scripts/kconfig/conf --silentoldconfig Kconfig
arch/arm/Kconfig:1277:error: recursive dependency detected!
arch/arm/Kconfig:1277:	symbol SMP depends on CPU_V6K
arch/arm/mm/Kconfig:407:	symbol CPU_V6K depends on SMP

Regards,
Nishanth Menon

RE: pm-core: recursive dependency on config

[Santosh Shilimkar]

+ Russell,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Menon, Nishanth
> Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 1:51 PM
> To: linux-omap
> Subject: pm-core: recursive dependency on config
>
> Folks,
> Dumb question:
> Some one seen this one? is there a patch in the pipe for the fix?
>
> scripts/kconfig/conf --silentoldconfig Kconfig
> arch/arm/Kconfig:1277:error: recursive dependency detected!
> arch/arm/Kconfig:1277:	symbol SMP depends on CPU_V6K
> arch/arm/mm/Kconfig:407:	symbol CPU_V6K depends on SMP
>
I saw this one too. This is because of resent changes to
ensure that CPU_32v6K is always enabled with SMP builds.

This is tricky dependency. May be RMK has better way to deal
with this.

Two relevant commit on this are '85a11f52' and  '15490ef8'

Regards,
Santosh

Re: pm-core: recursive dependency on config

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 02:11:29PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> + Russell,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-omap-
> > owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Menon, Nishanth
> > Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 1:51 PM
> > To: linux-omap
> > Subject: pm-core: recursive dependency on config
> >
> > Folks,
> > Dumb question:
> > Some one seen this one? is there a patch in the pipe for the fix?
> >
> > scripts/kconfig/conf --silentoldconfig Kconfig
> > arch/arm/Kconfig:1277:error: recursive dependency detected!
> > arch/arm/Kconfig:1277:	symbol SMP depends on CPU_V6K
> > arch/arm/mm/Kconfig:407:	symbol CPU_V6K depends on SMP
> >
> I saw this one too. This is because of resent changes to
> ensure that CPU_32v6K is always enabled with SMP builds.
> 
> This is tricky dependency. May be RMK has better way to deal
> with this.
> 
> Two relevant commit on this are '85a11f52' and  '15490ef8'

What is 85a11f52 ?

15490ef8 (in mainline) is:

 config CPU_32v6K
        bool "Support ARM V6K processor extensions" if !SMP
        depends on CPU_V6 || CPU_V7
-       default y if SMP && !(ARCH_MX3 || ARCH_OMAP2)
+       default y if SMP

fbb4ddac (ARM: v6k: only allow SMP if we have v6k or v7 CPU) does this:

 config SMP
        bool "Symmetric Multi-Processing (EXPERIMENTAL)"
        depends on EXPERIMENTAL
+       depends on CPU_V6K || CPU_V7

which I assume is 85a11f52 in Tony's tree.
However, e399b1a4e (ARM: v6k: introduce CPU_V6K option) does this:

-config CPU_32v6K
-       bool "Support ARM V6K processor extensions" if !SMP
-       depends on CPU_V6 || CPU_V7
-       default y if SMP && !(ARCH_MX3 || ARCH_OMAP2)
-       help
-         Say Y here if your ARMv6 processor supports the 'K' extension.
-         This enables the kernel to use some instructions not present
-         on previous processors, and as such a kernel build with this
-         enabled will not boot on processors with do not support these
-         instructions.
+config CPU_V6K
+       bool "Support ARM V6K processor" if ARCH_INTEGRATOR || MACH_REALVIEW_EB
+       select CPU_32v6
+       select CPU_32v6K if !ARCH_OMAP2
+       select CPU_ABRT_EV6
+       select CPU_PABRT_V6
+       select CPU_CACHE_V6
+       select CPU_CACHE_VIPT
+       select CPU_CP15_MMU
+       select CPU_HAS_ASID if MMU
+       select CPU_COPY_V6 if MMU
+       select CPU_TLB_V6 if MMU

which conflicts with 15490ef8.

So I suspect that a merge conflict hasn't been resolved correctly.  I'm
not going to worry about that because I have the merge conflict resolution
here already as part of my tree.

Re: pm-core: recursive dependency on config

[Tony Lindgren]

* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> [110305 01:55]:
> 
> So I suspect that a merge conflict hasn't been resolved correctly.  I'm
> not going to worry about that because I have the merge conflict resolution
> here already as part of my tree.

Sounds like that's the case, I'll take a look.

Tony