Re: [PATCH] firmware: arm_scpi: Add hardware dependencies
From: Jean Delvare
Date: Wed Jan 25 2017 - 09:14:40 EST
On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:56:23 +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On 25/01/17 13:50, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 13:38:47 +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >> On 25/01/17 13:32, Jean Delvare wrote:
> >>> With a name like that, I assume that the ARM SCPI protocol is only
> >>> useful on the ARM architectures.
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@xxxxxxx>
> >>> Fixes: 8f1498c03d15 ("firmware: arm_scpi: make it depend on MAILBOX instead of")
> >>> Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
> >>> Cc: Jon Medhurst (Tixy) <tixy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
> >> I won't say you are wrong but the reason why it's named arm_scpi is
> >> because the protocol was developed by ARM. It doesnn't mean only
> >> ARM/ARM64 needs to use it, it can be used on any architecture for
> >> inter-processor communication using any communication technique
> >> (currently mailbox is the only supported in the driver)
> > OK, thanks for the clarification. In practice, what other architectures
> > are using it?
> None, hence I didn't say you are wrong ;). I am fine having the check if
> it breaks for any other architecture with COMPILE_TEST.
Not sure what you mean here... The purpose of COMPILE_TEST is to allow
limiting the scope of a driver withing hurting the build test coverage.
> Also you have mentioned it fixes 8f1498c03d15, have you seen any
> regression with that commit ? If so, details in the commit would be
Before 8f1498c03d15, the dependency on ARM_MHU made the driver only
visible on ARM kernels. Since 8f1498c03d15, the driver is proposed to
all, which I think isn't correct. In that sense my proposed patch is
fixing a (user-friendliness) regression. But nothing serious.
SUSE L3 Support