Re: [PATCH] iommu: fix ARM_SMMU vs QCOM_SCM compilation

[Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 12:57, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 11:10 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
> <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 at 09:09, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 6:11 AM Dmitry Baryshkov
> > > <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 10 Oct 2021 at 20:42, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The patch seems correct, but it becomes overcomplicated. What about:
> > > > - restoring QCOM_SCM stubs
> > >
> > > The stubs are what has led to the previous bugs in this area to often
> > > go unnoticed for too long, as illustrated by your suggestion
> > >
> > > > - making ARM_SMMU select QCOM_SCM if ARM_SMMU_QCOM
> > >
> > > I assume you meant "select QCOM_SCM if ARCH_QCOM",
> > > after we stop using ARM_SMMU_QCOM?
> > >
> > > > This would have almost the same result as with your patch, but without
> > > > extra ARM_SMMU_QCOM Kconfig symbol.
> > >
> > > The "almost" is the problem: consider the case of
> > >
> > > CONFIG_ARM=y
> > > CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST=y
> > > CONFIG_ARCH_QCOM=n
> > > CONFIG_ARM_SMMU=y
> > > CONFIG_DRM_MSM=m
> > > CONFIG_QCOM_SCM=m (selected by DRM_MSM)
> > >
> > > The stubs here lead to ARM_SMMU linking against the QCOM_SCM
> > > driver from built-in code, which fails because QCOM_SCM itself
> > > is a loadable module.
> >
> > I see. The idealist in me wishes to change my suggestion to
> > 'select QCOM_SCM if ARCH_QCOM || COMPILE_TEST'
> > but I have the subtle feeling that this also might fail somehow.
>
> I think that would actually work, but it has the nasty side-effect
> that simply flipping 'CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST' changes what
> the kernel does, rather than just hiding or unhiding additional
> options.
>
> > > We can move the "select QCOM_SCM" in the ARM_SMMU_QCOM
> > > symbol if we make that a tristate though, if you want to separate it
> > > a little more.
> >
> > This would complicate things a bit, as we would no longer be able to
> > use 'arm-smmu-$(CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_QCOM) +=' construct.
>
> I'm fairly sure we could still use that, Kbuild is smart enough
> to include both 'file-m +=' and 'file-y += ' in 'file.ko', see
> scripts/Makefile.lib:
>
> # If $(foo-objs), $(foo-y), $(foo-m), or $(foo-) exists, foo.o is a
> composite object
> multi-obj-y := $(call multi-search, $(obj-y), .o, -objs -y)
> multi-obj-m := $(call multi-search, $(obj-m), .o, -objs -y -m)
> multi-obj-ym := $(multi-obj-y) $(multi-obj-m)
>
> # Replace multi-part objects by their individual parts,
> # including built-in.a from subdirectories
> real-obj-y := $(call real-search, $(obj-y), .o, -objs -y)
> real-obj-m := $(call real-search, $(obj-m), .o, -objs -y -m)

Ah, I thought Kbuild would accept only  foo-y, please excuse me.

>
> What doesn't work is having a built-in driver in a directory that is
> guarded with a =m symbol, or including a =m object into a =y
> module.
>
>         Arnd



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel