Re: [PATCH][RESEND] ASoC: Intel: atom: fix ACPI/PCI Kconfig

[Takashi Iwai]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2018 19:06:14 +0200,
Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote:
> 
> The split between ACPI and PCI platforms generated issues with randconfig:
> 
> with SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_PCI=y and
> SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM=m, we get this module link failure:
> 
> ERROR: "sst_context_init"
> [sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/snd-intel-sst-acpi.ko] undefined!
> 
> ERROR: "sst_context_cleanup"
> [sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/snd-intel-sst-acpi.ko] undefined!
> 
> ERROR: "sst_alloc_drv_context"
> [sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/snd-intel-sst-acpi.ko] undefined!
> 
> ERROR: "intel_sst_pm" [sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/snd-intel-sst-acpi.ko]
> undefined!
> 
> ERROR: "sst_configure_runtime_pm"
> [sound/soc/intel/atom/sst/snd-intel-sst-acpi.ko] undefined!
> 
> To keep things simple, let's expose two configs for
> SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_PCI and SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_ACPI,
> which select a common SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM option. To avoid
> breaking existing solutions with the semantics change,
> SND_SST_ATOM_HIFI2_PLATFORM_ACPI uses "default ACPI" so that "make
> oldnoconfig" and "make olddefconfig" still work as expected.

So now it reached to my tree, and noticed this "default ACPI".

After reading the patch description, I understand the reason behind
it, but still I'd say this would confuse users.  For example, I was
quite surprised and almost proceeded to build this unnecessary just
because of the expectation to be default "N" in a standard config.

The distros would enable in anyway, so you don't have to care much.
The question is which target should we satisfy more: users who don't
need to turn this on, or users who need this.  In probability, I'd bet
the former :)


Takashi