lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] remoteproc: qcom: Introduce Hexagon V5 based WCSS driver
From
Date
Hi Bjorn,

On 6/7/2018 9:54 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Wed 06 Jun 21:11 PDT 2018, Vinod wrote:
>
>> On 06-06-18, 09:17, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>>> On Tue 05 Jun 05:56 PDT 2018, Sricharan R wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Vinod,
>>>>
>>>> On 6/5/2018 11:49 AM, Vinod wrote:
>>>>> On 05-06-18, 11:12, Sricharan R wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> +config QCOM_Q6V5_WCSS
>>>>>> + tristate "Qualcomm Hexagon based WCSS Peripheral Image Loader"
>>>>>> + depends on OF && ARCH_QCOM
>>>>>> + depends on QCOM_SMEM
>>>>>> + depends on RPMSG_QCOM_SMD || (COMPILE_TEST && RPMSG_QCOM_SMD=n)
>>>>>> + depends on RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM || RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there a reason why it depends on RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n? What would
>>>>> happen if distro wants both this and RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM
>>>>>
>>>
>>> It says that QCOM_Q6V5_WCSS either must have a compatible state (i.e.
>>> builtin vs builtin, module vs builtin, but not builtin vs module) or
>>> that it's disabled, in which case we will hit the stub functions in
>>> qcom_glink.h.
>>>
>>> I.e. this prevents QCOM_Q6V5_WCSS to be compiled builtin when
>>> RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM is module, as this would give us both stubs and
>>> the module.
>>
>> IIUC, you want to have QCOM_Q6V5_WCSS and RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM as
>> modules or builtin
>>
>
> RPMSG_QCOM_SMD, RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM and QCOM_Q6V5_WCSS are all
> tristate.
>
>> So, wouldn't Kconfig syntax something like where we say:
>> M if RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=m
>> bool if RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=y
>>
>
> If we ignore SMD for a while we have the following combinations:
>
> glink/wcss
> y y - valid
> y m - valid
> y n - valid
> m y - link failure (invalid)
> m m - valid
> m n - valid
> n y - valid (platform uses wcss, but not glink)
> n m - valid (-----"-----)
> n n - valid
>
> So to distill this we have the two valid cases:
> module/no if RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=m
> yes/module/no if RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=y
>
> and the way you express that in Kconfig is the somewhat awkward
>
> depends on RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM || RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n
>

ok, Having "depends on RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM" takes care of the
first 6 cases in the above list.

But just was thinking that by allowing the last three combinations,
there is a chance that some config that really needs GLINK_SMEM and WCSS,
but selects only Q6V5_WCSS and misses to select GLINK_SMEM,
would still built and make it non-functional, right ?

Regards,
Sricharan

>> Which makes it clear that both these have to be same type?
>>
>
> They don't have to be of the same type, only of a compatible type.
>

--
"QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-07 07:30    [W:0.080 / U:0.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site