Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] drivers/gpu/drm: don't select DMA_CMA or CMA from aspeed or etnaviv

[David Hildenbrand]

On 08.04.21 12:20, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 11:22 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Random drivers should not override a user configuration of core knobs
> > (e.g., CONFIG_DMA_CMA=n). Use "imply" instead, to still respect
> > dependencies and manual overrides.
> >
> > "This is similar to "select" as it enforces a lower limit on another
> >   symbol except that the "implied" symbol's value may still be set to n
> >   from a direct dependency or with a visible prompt."
> >
> > Implying DRM_CMA should be sufficient, as that depends on CMA.
> >
> > Note: If this is a real dependency, we should use "depends on DMA_CMA"
> > instead -  but I assume the driver can work without CMA just fine --
> > esp. when we wouldn't have HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS right now.
>
> 'imply' is almost never the right solution, and it tends to cause more
> problems than it solves.

I thought that was the case with "select" :)

> In particular, it does not prevent a configuration with 'DRM_CMA=m'

I assume you meant "DRM_CMA=n" ? DRM_CMA cannot be built as a module.

> and 'DRMA_ASPEED_GFX=y', or any build failures from such
> a configuration.

I don't follow. "DRM_CMA=n" and 'DRMA_ASPEED_GFX=y' is supposed to work 
just fine (e.g., without HAVE_DMA_CONTIGUOUS) or what am I missing?

> If you want this kind of soft dependency, you need
> 'depends on DRM_CMA || !DRM_CMA'.

Seriously? I think the point of imply is "please enable if possible and 
not prevented by someone else". Your example looks more like a NOP - no? 
Or will it have the same effect?


--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb