[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFqUy2MoBAqTPhOKoAY0tJYT_parXTFEq-JNLvAo7FQq1g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2022 12:10:42 +0200
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
Cc: Prathamesh Shete <pshete@...dia.com>,
"adrian.hunter@...el.com" <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
"p.zabel@...gutronix.de" <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Aniruddha Tvs Rao <anrao@...dia.com>,
Suresh Mangipudi <smangipudi@...dia.com>,
Krishna Yarlagadda <kyarlagadda@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 2/4] mmc: sdhci-tegra: Add support to program MC stream ID
On Mon, 17 Oct 2022 at 16:11, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 03:43:18PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 at 08:33, Prathamesh Shete <pshete@...dia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Ulf,
> > >
> > > >> In that case, perhaps we can add a "depends on IOMMU_API" in the Kconfig
> > > >> instead? Or is the tegra driver used on platforms where IOMMU_API could be
> > > >> unset?
> > > Yes it can/will work with IOMMU disabled so its not recommended to add a "depends on" condition in Kconfig.
> >
> > Alright, in that case it looks to me that there are two other options
> > to move forward.
> >
> > 1) Add proper definitions of the struct iommu_fwspec in
> > include/linux/iommu.h even when CONFIG_IOMMU_API is unset. In a way it
> > seems a bit silly to me, to have the iommu stubs around, unless those
> > can be used for cases like this, right!?
>
> I recall that I had proposed a patch for this a long time ago:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20191209120005.2254786-3-thierry.reding@gmail.com/
That looks exactly what we would need!
>
> Given that Joerg had acked it at the time, I think the only reason why
> it never ended up getting merged is because the rest of the series did
> not get enough traction. I wonder if I should peel it out of the series
> and propose it separately.
Yes, please.
>
> I agree it doesn't make any sense to have the stubs to allow compilation
> and then break compilation because users of the stubs will end up
> wanting to dereference the structure.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts around this!
If you submit a new version of the old patch, I would certainly give
it my blessing.
Kind regards
Uffe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists