linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 08/11] ASoC: Intel: atom: Make PCI dependency explicit

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]

Message-ID: <CAK9iUCPWQ=9EgnUFo8BHraEgFwHs3FdbegPLwhT-KHD=r2WBkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Jan 2019 22:58:22 +0000
From:   Sinan Kaya <Okaya@...nel.org>
To:     Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:INTEL ASoC DRIVERS" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Jie Yang <yang.jie@...ux.intel.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <liam.r.girdwood@...ux.intel.com>,
        ACPI Devel Mailing List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5 08/11] ASoC: Intel: atom: Make PCI
 dependency explicit

On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 10:50 PM Pierre-Louis Bossart
<pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> > This is pointing to a kconfig issue on ia64 arch.
> >
> > arch/ia64/Kconfig:128:error: recursive dependency detected!
> > arch/ia64/Kconfig:128:    choice <choice> contains symbol IA64_HP_SIM
> > arch/ia64/Kconfig:202:    symbol IA64_HP_SIM is part of choice PM
> >
> > IA64_HP_SIM is both a choice and is selected.
> >
> > I did allyesconfig and disabled PCI afterwards to find all the issues
> > on this patchset.
>
> Are you saying there's a newer series that fixes this issue for both
> allyesconfig and allmodconfig?
>
> if yes, then we're good.


No, I haven't fixed ia64 kconfig issue. That's somebody else's job. I
used allyesconfig to find out all compilation issues on x86 arch to
come up with this patchset.


>
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> > I matched depends line to
> >
> > depends on X86 && ACPI && PCI
> >
> > for MMC_SDHCI_ACPI per feedback from Rafael on V5. This should resolve
> > the inconsistency.
> ok, I didn't see the delta
> >
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >> 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?
> > Hopefully, v5 resolves this too with
> >
> > depends on X86 && ACPI && PCI
> >
> > Let me know otherwise.
>
> it doesn't but that's not a good enough reason to lay on the tracks.
> I'll follow-up with a cleanup for the Intel audio parts when this series
> is merged. The PCI dependency could be moved to the top-level since it's
> pretty much required for all platforms except for compilation tests, and
> there are multiple dependencies that repeated for no good reason, so FWIW
>
> Acked-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
>