linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ACPI / PMIC: xpower: fix IOSF

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:   Fri, 2 Nov 2018 17:15:48 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI / PMIC: xpower: fix IOSF_MBI dependency

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 12:09:34PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 02-11-18 12:06, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > We still get a link failure with IOSF_MBI=m when the xpower driver
> > is built-in:
> > 
> > drivers/acpi/pmic/intel_pmic_xpower.o: In function `intel_xpower_pmic_update_power':
> > intel_pmic_xpower.c:(.text+0x4f2): undefined reference to `iosf_mbi_block_punit_i2c_access'
> > intel_pmic_xpower.c:(.text+0x5e2): undefined reference to `iosf_mbi_unblock_punit_i2c_access'
> > 
> > This makes the dependency stronger, so we can only build when IOSF_MBI
> > is built-in.
> > 
> > Fixes: 6a9b593d4b6f ("ACPI / PMIC: xpower: Add depends on IOSF_MBI to Kconfig entry")
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> 
> Hmm, it is probably better to make IOSF_MBI a bool, it is selected by:
> X86_INTEL_QUARK and X86_INTEL_LPSS which are both bools themselves.
> 
> Arguably it should also be hidden and only enabled through these selects.
> Does someone from Intel have an opinion on making it hidden?

We have number of cases where tristate modules depend on or select it.
So, I have not seen a good argument to make it boolean.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko