From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
To: Narendra K <Narendra.K@dell.com>
Cc: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
linux-efi <linux-efi@vger.kernel.org>,
Mario Limonciello <Mario.Limonciello@dell.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ask user input only when CONFIG_X86 or CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST is set to y
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2019 19:04:15 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdWALc_hneRaiwQbMWUXe=LnVqU7dkkWibV0cqb8Gc5e0g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191011125446.GA2170@localhost.localdomain>
Hi Narendra,
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 2:55 PM <Narendra.K@dell.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 12:01:25PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > > > - bool "EFI Runtime Configuration Interface Table Version 2 Support"
> > > > > > > + bool
> > > > > > > + prompt "EFI RCI Table Version 2 Support" if X86 || COMPILE_TEST
> > > >
> > > > Why the split of bool and prompt?
> > > > Why not simply add a single line "depends on X86 || COMPILE_TEST"?
> > >
> > > It is because of the findings shared in [1]. Please let me know your
> > > thoughts on the findings.
> >
> > So you want to prevent the user from seeing a prompt for an option he may
> > or may not need to enable, when running "make oldconfig"?
>
> Geert,
>
> > The code in question is entirely architecture agnostic, and defaults
> > to 'n', so I am not convinced this is needed. (It came up in the
> > review as well)
>
> >> "make oldconfig" still asks me the question on e.g. arm64, where it is
> >> irrelevant, until arm64 variants of the hardware show up.
>
> >> So IMHO it should have "depends on X86 || COMPILE_TEST".
>
> From the discussion in [1] and [2](pasted a part of it above), my understanding
> of the issue you reported is that 'make oldconfig' asks the user a question for arm64
> though the EFI_RCI2_TABLE is not relevant for arm64. From the tests,
> it seemed like adding "depends on X86 || COMPILE_TEST" does not fix the
> issue, splitting bool into bool + prompt fixes it.
>
> Please let me know if I am missing any detail in the issue you reported.
Adding a "depends on X86 || COMPILE_TEST" should fix the issue, as
X86 is never set on arm64, nor on any other architecture than X86.
If COMPILE_TEST=y, it's normal expected behavior to show the question.
> With the way EFI_RCI2_TABLE is currently defined, my understanding is
> that 'make oldconfig' does not set the EFI_RCI2_TABLE to 'y' by default
> on arm64, but it asks the user the question. User has to say 'y' if he
> wants it to be set to 'y', else by default 'n' is set. This behavior is
> as expected.
If the option doesn't make sense on arm64 (more broadly: on non-X86),
it should depend on X86 || COMPILE_TEST, to avoid spamming the user
with (zillions of) options that do not matter for his platform.
> > One common approach is to let the Kconfig symbol for the platform (not for
> > all of X86!) select EFI_RCI2_TABLE.
> > That way it will be enabled automatically when needed.
>
> We did not intend to enable EFI_RCI2_TABLE option by default even on all
> X86 systems from the begining. As a result, we chose to set it to 'n' by
> default and added the guidance in 'help' section to say 'y' for Dell EMC
> PowerEdge systems.
Good.
>> > Another approach is to not force the option on, but guide the user towards
> > enabling it, by adding "default y if <platform_symbol>".
>
> As mentioned above, we want to keep the default to n.
OK.
> > Without the "|| COMPILE_TEST", you cannot enable compile-testing of
> > the driver on non-x86 platforms with EFI.
>
> Ok. We could keep the check. Could we make it independent of platforms
> by adding 'defbool y if COMPILE_TEST' ?
Please don't do that, as it with always enable the driver if COMPILE_TEST=y,
without providing a way to opt-out for the user.
Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-10-12 17:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-10-02 19:44 [PATCH] Ask user input only when CONFIG_X86 or CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST is set to y Narendra.K
2019-10-09 14:11 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2019-10-10 17:47 ` Narendra.K
2019-10-10 18:50 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-10-11 9:43 ` Narendra.K
2019-10-11 10:01 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2019-10-11 12:55 ` Narendra.K
2019-10-12 17:04 ` Geert Uytterhoeven [this message]
2019-10-13 19:08 ` Narendra.K
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAMuHMdWALc_hneRaiwQbMWUXe=LnVqU7dkkWibV0cqb8Gc5e0g@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=Mario.Limonciello@dell.com \
--cc=Narendra.K@dell.com \
--cc=ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=linux-efi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).