[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z2HIW4c-S_IA9bWb@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 13:52:11 -0500
From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@...el.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>, <michael.j.ruhl@...el.com>,
<lucas.demarchi@...el.com>
CC: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>, Thomas
Hellström <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>, "Maarten
Lankhorst" <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>, Maxime Ripard
<mripard@...nel.org>, Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>, David Airlie
<airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>, "David E. Box"
<david.e.box@...ux.intel.com>, Ilpo Järvinen
<ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>, "Michael J. Ruhl"
<michael.j.ruhl@...el.com>, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, "Jani
Nikula" <jani.nikula@...el.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert+renesas@...der.be>, Tejas Upadhyay <tejas.upadhyay@...el.com>, Hans de
Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>, <intel-xe@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/xe/vsec: enforce CONFIG_INTEL_VSEC dependency
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 08:18:44AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
>
> When INTEL_VSEC is in a loadable module, XE cannot be built-in any more:
>
> x86_64-linux-ld: vmlinux.o: in function `xe_vsec_init':
> (.text+0x19861bf): undefined reference to `intel_vsec_register'
>
> This could be enforced using a 'depends on INTEL_VSEC || !INTEL_VSEC'
> style dependency to allow building with VSEC completely disabled.
> My impression here is that this was not actually intended, and that
> continuing to support that combination would lead to more build bugs.
>
> Instead, make it a hard dependency as all other INTEL_VSEC users are,
> and remove the inline stub alternative. This leads to a dependency
> on CONFIG_X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES, so the 'select' has to be removed
> to avoid a circular dependency.
>
I really don't want us to hard lock this X86 dependency here.
What if we add a new DRM_XE_DGFX_PMT_SUPPORT and that
depends on INTEL_VSEC ?
and our if statement changes to
if (IS_ENABLED(DRM_XE_DGFX_PMT_SUPPORT)
We could even leave this enabled by default, but at least
it is an easy path to someone willing to run experiments
without depending on X86 I believe...
Cc: Michael J. Ruhl <michael.j.ruhl@...el.com>
Cc: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...el.com>
> Fixes: 0c45e76fcc62 ("drm/xe/vsec: Support BMG devices")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Kconfig | 2 +-
> include/linux/intel_vsec.h | 7 -------
> 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Kconfig
> index 6c5b665d9384..217b51468497 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/Kconfig
> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@
> config DRM_XE
> tristate "Intel Xe Graphics"
> depends on DRM && PCI && MMU && (m || (y && KUNIT=y))
> + depends on INTEL_VSEC
> select INTERVAL_TREE
> # we need shmfs for the swappable backing store, and in particular
> # the shmem_readpage() which depends upon tmpfs
> @@ -28,7 +29,6 @@ config DRM_XE
> select INPUT if ACPI
> select ACPI_VIDEO if X86 && ACPI
> select ACPI_BUTTON if ACPI
> - select X86_PLATFORM_DEVICES if X86 && ACPI
> select ACPI_WMI if X86 && ACPI
> select SYNC_FILE
> select IOSF_MBI
> diff --git a/include/linux/intel_vsec.h b/include/linux/intel_vsec.h
> index b94beab64610..f2d55e686476 100644
> --- a/include/linux/intel_vsec.h
> +++ b/include/linux/intel_vsec.h
> @@ -138,13 +138,6 @@ static inline struct intel_vsec_device *auxdev_to_ivdev(struct auxiliary_device
> return container_of(auxdev, struct intel_vsec_device, auxdev);
> }
>
> -#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INTEL_VSEC)
> void intel_vsec_register(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> struct intel_vsec_platform_info *info);
> -#else
> -static inline void intel_vsec_register(struct pci_dev *pdev,
> - struct intel_vsec_platform_info *info)
> -{
> -}
> -#endif
> #endif
> --
> 2.39.5
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists