From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751449AbdKUVbH (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2017 16:31:07 -0500 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:25636 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751229AbdKUVbG (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Nov 2017 16:31:06 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,432,1505804400"; d="scan'208";a="5518367" Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [RFC PATCH 1/7] ASoC: Intel: Fix Kconfig To: Takashi Iwai Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, arnd@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, liam.r.girdwood@linux.intel.com, vinod.koul@intel.com, broonie@kernel.org, andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org References: <20171118000202.22302-1-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> <20171118000202.22302-2-pierre-louis.bossart@linux.intel.com> From: Pierre-Louis Bossart Message-ID: <5b450209-36d7-d12a-54d2-503592e5f71f@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:31:03 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/21/17 11:07 AM, Takashi Iwai wrote: > On Sat, 18 Nov 2017 01:01:56 +0100, > Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: >> >> Follow network example suggested by Linus, move Intel definitions >> in if/endif block and clarify which options distro configurations >> should enable - everything except legacy Baytrail stuff and >> NOCODEC (test only) >> >> There should be no functionality change - except that sound capabilities >> are restored when using older configs without any user selection. >> >> Fixes: f6a118a800e3 ("ASoC: Intel: clarify Kconfig dependencies") >> Reported-by: Linus Torvalds >> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart > > A few another things I noticed while looking at the end result: > >> config SND_SOC_INTEL_SKYLAKE >> tristate "Intel ASoC SST driver for SKL/BXT/KBL/GLK/CNL" >> - depends on SND_SOC_INTEL_SST_TOPLEVEL && PCI && ACPI >> + depends on PCI && ACPI >> select SND_HDA_EXT_CORE >> select SND_HDA_DSP_LOADER >> select SND_SOC_TOPOLOGY >> select SND_SOC_INTEL_SST >> + select SND_SOC_INTEL_COMMON >> + >> +endif ## SND_SOC_INTEL_SST_TOPLEVEL > > This endif should cover the whole including the source > boards/Kconfig. In that way, deselecting SND_SOC_INTEL_SST_TOPLEVEL > will skip the whole. As of this patch, you'll be still asked about > the board config even if you say TOPLEVEL=n. yes for now, but it's a feature needed for SOF integration...see below. > >> # ASoC codec drivers >> source "sound/soc/intel/boards/Kconfig" >> + >> +# configs common to SST and SOF to compile sound/soc/intel/common >> +# directory and use matching tables >> + >> +config SND_SOC_INTEL_COMMON >> + tristate >> + select SND_SOC_ACPI_INTEL_MATCH if ACPI >> + >> +config SND_SOC_ACPI_INTEL_MATCH >> + tristate >> + select SND_SOC_ACPI if ACPI > > ... so here should be placed the endif. Those two are needed for SOF and shouldn't be filtered out by SST. we can move them somewhere else if needed. > >> diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/boards/Kconfig b/sound/soc/intel/boards/Kconfig >> index 6f754708a48c..4ae44b0cea0a 100644 >> --- a/sound/soc/intel/boards/Kconfig >> +++ b/sound/soc/intel/boards/Kconfig >> @@ -1,7 +1,14 @@ >> -config SND_SOC_INTEL_MACH >> - tristate "Intel Audio machine drivers" >> - depends on SND_SOC_INTEL_SST_TOPLEVEL >> - select SND_SOC_ACPI_INTEL_MATCH if ACPI >> +config SND_SOC_INTEL_MACH >> + bool "Intel ASoC machine drivers" >> + default y >> + help >> + Intel ASoC Audio Machine Drivers. If you have a Intel machine that >> + has audio controller with a DSP and I2S or DMIC port, then >> + enable this option by saying Y >> + >> + Note that the answer to this question doesn't directly affect the >> + kernel: saying N will just cause the configurator to skip all >> + the questions about Intel SST machine drivers. > > Do we still need this filtering? Since we have a top-level filter, > users who want to skip the Intel stuff can say N there already, and I > can't imagine anyone who want only the SST core / platform drivers > built without machine drivers explicitly. Yes, but when we add SOF we will have an alternate top-level and the machine drivers should be selectable even when SST is filtered out. > > > thanks, > > Takashi >