From: John Stultz <email@example.com>
To: Will Deacon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Maulik Shah <email@example.com>,
Jason Cooper <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Saravana Kannan <email@example.com>,
Marc Zyngier <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Lina Iyer <email@example.com>,
Andy Gross <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <email@example.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Linus Walleij <email@example.com>,
Todd Kjos <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] firmware: QCOM_SCM: Allow qcom_scm driver to be loadable as a permenent module
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 13:48:29 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLXDVRzWDfuAS78EFwyYs3yr3QrPF3Tze0KAW1fo9c7M2A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 1:41 PM Will Deacon <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:21:53PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:54 AM Will Deacon <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 08:28:45PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:18 AM Will Deacon <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:10:39AM +0000, John Stultz wrote:
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/Kconfig b/drivers/iommu/Kconfig
> > > > > > index b510f67dfa49..714893535dd2 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/Kconfig
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/Kconfig
> > > > > > @@ -381,6 +381,7 @@ config SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU
> > > > > > config ARM_SMMU
> > > > > > tristate "ARM Ltd. System MMU (SMMU) Support"
> > > > > > depends on (ARM64 || ARM || (COMPILE_TEST && !GENERIC_ATOMIC64)) && MMU
> > > > > > + depends on QCOM_SCM || !QCOM_SCM #if QCOM_SCM=m this can't be =y
> > > > > > select IOMMU_API
> > > > > > select IOMMU_IO_PGTABLE_LPAE
> > > > > > select ARM_DMA_USE_IOMMU if ARM
> > > > >
> > > > > This looks like a giant hack. Is there another way to handle this?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the slow response here.
> > > >
> > > > So, I agree the syntax looks strange (requiring a comment obviously
> > > > isn't a good sign), but it's a fairly common way to ensure drivers
> > > > don't get built in if they optionally depend on another driver that
> > > > can be built as a module.
> > > > See "RFKILL || !RFKILL", "EXTCON || !EXTCON", or "USB_GADGET ||
> > > > !USB_GADGET" in various Kconfig files.
> > > >
> > > > I'm open to using a different method, and in a different thread you
> > > > suggested using something like symbol_get(). I need to look into it
> > > > more, but that approach looks even more messy and prone to runtime
> > > > failures. Blocking the unwanted case at build time seems a bit cleaner
> > > > to me, even if the syntax is odd.
> > >
> > > Maybe just split it out then, so that the ARM_SMMU entry doesn't have this,
> > > as that driver _really_ doesn't care about SoC details like this. In other
> > > words, add a new entry along the lines of:
> > >
> > > config ARM_SMMU_QCOM_IMPL
> > > default y
> > > #if QCOM_SCM=m this can't be =y
> > > depends on ARM_SMMU & (QCOM_SCM || !QCOM_SCM)
> > >
> > > and then have arm-smmu.h provide a static inline qcom_smmu_impl_init()
> > > which returns -ENODEV if CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_QCOM_IMPL=n and hack the Makefile
> > > so that we don't bother to compile arm-smmu-qcom.o in that case.
> > >
> > > Would that work?
> > I think this proposal still has problems with the directionality of the call.
> > The arm-smmu-impl.o calls to arm-smmu-qcom.o which calls qcom_scm.o
> > So if qcom_scm.o is part of a module, the calling code in
> > arm-smmu-qcom.o also needs to be a module, which means CONFIG_ARM_SMMU
> > needs to be a module.
> > I know you said the arm-smmu driver doesn't care about SoC details,
> > but the trouble is that currently the arm-smmu driver does directly
> > call the qcom-scm code. So it is a real dependency. However, if
> > QCOM_SCM is not configured, it calls stubs and that's ok. In that
> > way, the "depends on QCOM_SCM || !QCOM_SCM" line actually makes sense.
> > It looks terrible because we're used to boolean logic, but it's
> > ternary.
> Yes, it looks ugly, but the part I really have issues with is that building
> QCOM_SCM=m and ARM_SMMU=y is perfectly fine if you don't run on an SoC
> with the qcom implementation. I don't see why we need to enforce things
> here beyond making sure that all selectable permutations _build_ and
> fail gracefully at runtime on the qcom SoC if SCM isn't available.
Ok. Thanks, that context/rationale makes sense to me now! I'll dig in
and see if I can figure out the runtime get_symbol handling you
suggested for the scm callout.
Thanks again for the feedback!
iommu mailing list
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-13 20:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-25 0:10 [PATCH v2 0/5] Allow for qcom-pdc, pinctrl-msm and qcom-scm drivers to be loadable as modules John Stultz
2020-06-25 0:10 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] irq: irqdomain: Export irq_domain_update_bus_token John Stultz
2020-06-25 0:10 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] irq: irqchip: Export irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy and irq_chip_set_vcpu_affinity_parent John Stultz
2020-06-25 0:10 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] irqchip: Allow QCOM_PDC to be loadable as a permanent module John Stultz
2020-06-26 7:42 ` Stephen Boyd
2020-06-27 1:34 ` John Stultz
2020-06-27 9:37 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-07-10 6:02 ` Stephen Boyd
2020-07-10 22:44 ` John Stultz
2020-07-10 23:27 ` Stephen Boyd
2020-07-12 9:27 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-06-25 0:10 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] pinctrl: qcom: Allow pinctrl-msm code to be loadable as a module John Stultz
2020-06-25 0:10 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] firmware: QCOM_SCM: Allow qcom_scm driver to be loadable as a permenent module John Stultz
2020-07-02 12:47 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2020-07-02 14:18 ` Will Deacon
2020-07-10 3:28 ` John Stultz
2020-07-10 7:54 ` Will Deacon
2020-07-10 22:21 ` John Stultz
2020-07-13 20:41 ` Will Deacon
2020-07-13 20:48 ` John Stultz [this message]
2020-07-14 7:56 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-28 5:53 ` John Stultz
2020-10-28 13:51 ` Will Deacon
2020-10-28 14:51 ` Robin Murphy
2020-10-30 1:02 ` John Stultz
2020-10-30 14:12 ` Robin Murphy
2020-10-31 0:12 ` John Stultz
2020-10-30 6:09 ` John Stultz
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:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* 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).