From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DD22C43387 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 22:01:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6004D20874 for ; Wed, 2 Jan 2019 22:01:57 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1546466517; bh=HPeI2insvCD0IbQ79NwpFrl9DqIq1O81yDiPu4mor7Q=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:List-ID:From; b=eT0pUOYcLOQ/H/n4YKph00ikbkionnPu4K0IjteWBtP5tyvkUZ1496HWikpe6VNxD pv38ULKjPQgIOUw7VNSewFZ11oDi4hOfGpOGpVmViWcHffXwIbEDndqclqh5OOmhoO lW8tmcPQGo8UQW5EBKTHcLvuYDYYlyNMWhjrHeu0= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729219AbfABWB4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jan 2019 17:01:56 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-f67.google.com ([209.85.210.67]:37855 "EHLO mail-ot1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726143AbfABWBz (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jan 2019 17:01:55 -0500 Received: by mail-ot1-f67.google.com with SMTP id 40so27900506oth.4; Wed, 02 Jan 2019 14:01:55 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VZubh1I1Z+Vo5l11siYpNXPfmvkd1NhArjp7I1rBeyo=; b=G7Q42w4ama3KOY7hMrB4jMluAxxPy4I2/n79Su2kdEEBkqypxl7NpDCzn5vKMpREok mxvBPguPyoCxHna7hv9B39H6CQKeYmVeokWIOu60upqflQF50+Tc39tOJDPc9KbxtCfc q5mStJPUuurD7XMS8jG8NzJTptJJkMRM1giSZjZ6okGJv1m0asxtR5P8hvFxH2x89/ML t0tNQc4/dC+PCd219wmRKnCGp0snmuYlsxI1eUreaVyxxo5VKhgy/p6Wo4o5hP1n+6c2 1b14uBaOkJTOFKw7lmkBDSyPgRJKdlt9RykyNtLBpToQmlQa08KNZx0kWYbPmaAAxXhi Zj2Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukd15+6txpc0JEOXlIvwx83oQbHHUavnNbimR2rdrx+28HRWfT/u Q0rkcc7S+xX/bx9rqUmhOE6MQFVq4n3Iru0uMeu9IwM2 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4JWpV9Nq+RfAVwiUbiOB14rjTJKjW5gpYkibT9phUaM0fesISO0H7pU/Gx52DMhxM8aGVkTZttXiT33ZdN97A= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:588c:: with SMTP id x12mr32490459otg.139.1546466514619; Wed, 02 Jan 2019 14:01:54 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190102181038.4418-1-okaya@kernel.org> <20190102181038.4418-9-okaya@kernel.org> <57ed1d94-7f89-20e8-3289-7ef7efd18c20@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <57ed1d94-7f89-20e8-3289-7ef7efd18c20@linux.intel.com> From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 23:01:43 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 08/11] ASoC: Intel: atom: Make PCI dependency explicit To: Pierre-Louis Bossart Cc: Sinan Kaya , Linux-Next Mailing List , "moderated list:INTEL ASoC DRIVERS" , Takashi Iwai , Jie Yang , Liam Girdwood , ACPI Devel Maling List , Mark Brown , open list Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 9:33 PM Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > I have three opens with this ACPI/PCI change > > 1. the baseline change fails on my cross-compilation checks, see below > the result of the attached script (simplification of the one I use to > avoid 0day reports). What baseline change? That failure is not related to PCI if I'm not missing anything. > 2. there are different patterns to express the dependency on PCI e.g. > > config MMC_SDHCI_ACPI > tristate "SDHCI support for ACPI enumerated SDHCI controllers" > depends on MMC_SDHCI && ACPI > - select IOSF_MBI if X86 > + select IOSF_MBI if (X86 && PCI) > > but > > config SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_ACPI > tristate "ACPI HiFi2 (Baytrail, Cherrytrail) Platforms" > default ACPI > - depends on X86 && ACPI > + depends on X86 && ACPI && PCI > select SND_SST_IPC_ACPI > select SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM > select SND_SOC_ACPI_INTEL_MATCH > > IOSF is only needed for Baytrail-CR detection, and the code will compile > fine without it, so maybe it'd be a better model if you used the > following diff? > > diff --git a/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig b/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig > index 2fd1b61e8331..68af0ea5c96c 100644 > --- a/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig > +++ b/sound/soc/intel/Kconfig > @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ config SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_ACPI > select SND_SST_IPC_ACPI > select SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM > select SND_SOC_ACPI_INTEL_MATCH > - select IOSF_MBI > + select IOSF_MBI if PCI Well, does it actually make sense to ever set SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_ACPI without PCI? > 3. All the Intel machine drivers depend on X86_INTEL_LPSS which depends > on PCI. But for Baytrail/Haswell/Broadwell we have only a dependency on > ACPI, so we expose drivers that can be selected but fail on probe since > there are no machine drivers. I am not sure if we want to be strict and > only expose meaningful configurations, or allow for more compilations > tests and corner cases? I would only expose meaningful configurations to start with and then *maybe* relax that going forward as long as the benefit is worth it. Cheers, Rafael