Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: qcom: Introduce Hexagon V5 based WCSS driver

[Sricharan R]

Hi Vinod,

On 6/5/2018 10:10 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 05-06-18, 18:26, Sricharan R wrote:
>> Hi Vinod,
>>
>> On 6/5/2018 11:49 AM, Vinod wrote:
>>> On 05-06-18, 11:12, Sricharan R wrote:
>>>
>>>> +config QCOM_Q6V5_WCSS
>>>> +	tristate "Qualcomm Hexagon based WCSS Peripheral Image Loader"
>>>> +	depends on OF && ARCH_QCOM
>>>> +	depends on QCOM_SMEM
>>>> +	depends on RPMSG_QCOM_SMD || (COMPILE_TEST && RPMSG_QCOM_SMD=n)
>>>> +	depends on RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM || RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n
>>>
>>> Is there a reason why it depends on RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n? What would
>>> happen if distro wants both this and RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM
>>>
>>   RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n should be for the COMPILE_TEST. Probably that
> 
> why would that be a limitation? I am more worried about
> RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n being the condition here. In new drivers we
> should not typically have dependency on some symbol being not there
> 

Without that, if RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=m is compiled as a module, then
it would break the build.

>>   means that it should be corrected here and for ADSP, Q6V5_PIL as well.
>>   Bjorn, is that correct ?, should it be, below ?
>>  
>>   depends on (RPMSG_QCOM_SMD || (COMPILE_TEST && RPMSG_QCOM_SMD=n)) || (RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM || (COMPILE_TEST && RPMSG_QCOM_GLINK_SMEM=n))
> 
> that doesnt really sound good :(
> 

 Hmm, but i was thinking it should functionally depend on either SMD or GLINK and not both.

Regards,
 Sricharan

-- 
"QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus