linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: qcom: Introduce Hexagon V5 based WCSS driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 6 Jun 2018 12:19:09 +0530
From:   Vinod <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Sricharan R <sricharan@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, ohad@...ery.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, andy.gross@...aro.org,
        david.brown@...aro.org, linux-remoteproc@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        sibis@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: qcom: Introduce Hexagon V5 based WCSS driver

Hi Sricharan,

On 06-06-18, 12:09, 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
> >>>
> >>   RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n should be for the COMPILE_TEST. Probably that
> > 
> > why would that be a limitation? I am more worried about
> > RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n being the condition here. In new drivers we
> > should not typically have dependency on some symbol being not there
> 
> Without that, if RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=m is compiled as a module, then
> it would break the build.

Okay I do not know the details, but that doesn't sound correct to me.
Breaking build sounds a bit extreme to me. Can you give details on this
part..

> >>   means that it should be corrected here and for ADSP, Q6V5_PIL as well.
> >>   Bjorn, is that correct ?, should it be, below ?
> >>  
> >>   depends on (RPMSG_QCOM_SMD || (COMPILE_TEST && RPMSG_QCOM_SMD=n)) || (RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM || (COMPILE_TEST && RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n))
> > 
> > that doesnt really sound good :(
> 
>  Hmm, but i was thinking it should functionally depend on either SMD or GLINK and not both.

If you are depedent upon a symbol provided by a module you should say
depends on. If a machine is not supposed to have both SMD or GLINK then
the driver will not get probed.

-- 
~Vinod