Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] drivers/gpu/drm: don't select DMA_CMA or CMA from aspeed or etnaviv

From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>,
	David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	Andrew Jeffery <andrew@aj.id.au>,
	Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de>,
	Russell King <linux+etnaviv@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@gmail.com>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
	Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
	Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@kernel.org>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
	Peter Collingbourne <pcc@google.com>,
	linux-aspeed <linux-aspeed@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	dri-devel <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	The etnaviv authors <etnaviv@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Linux Fbdev development list <linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] drivers/gpu/drm: don't select DMA_CMA or CMA from aspeed or etnaviv
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 12:27:02 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cd14d4b4-da82-b21c-2cd6-8e474d97b955@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a09LdJ-87ZrN28y=t8Sa0zL-3NOvEWhkStMY+2EbO7UAw@mail.gmail.com>

On 08.04.21 12:20, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 11:22 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Random drivers should not override a user configuration of core knobs
>> (e.g., CONFIG_DMA_CMA=n). Use "imply" instead, to still respect
>> dependencies and manual overrides.
>>
>> "This is similar to "select" as it enforces a lower limit on another
>>   symbol except that the "implied" symbol's value may still be set to n
>>   from a direct dependency or with a visible prompt."
>>
>> Implying DRM_CMA should be sufficient, as that depends on CMA.
>>
>> Note: If this is a real dependency, we should use "depends on DMA_CMA"
>> instead -  but I assume the driver can work without CMA just fine --
>> esp. when we wouldn't have HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS right now.
> 
> 'imply' is almost never the right solution, and it tends to cause more
> problems than it solves.

I thought that was the case with "select" :)

> 
> In particular, it does not prevent a configuration with 'DRM_CMA=m'

I assume you meant "DRM_CMA=n" ? DRM_CMA cannot be built as a module.

> and 'DRMA_ASPEED_GFX=y', or any build failures from such
> a configuration.

I don't follow. "DRM_CMA=n" and 'DRMA_ASPEED_GFX=y' is supposed to work 
just fine (e.g., without HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS) or what am I missing?

> 
> If you want this kind of soft dependency, you need
> 'depends on DRM_CMA || !DRM_CMA'.

Seriously? I think the point of imply is "please enable if possible and 
not prevented by someone else". Your example looks more like a NOP - no? 
Or will it have the same effect?

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb