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

[Vinod]

Hi Sricharan,

On 06-06-18, 12:09, 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.

Okay I do not know the details, but that doesn't sound correct to me.
Breaking build sounds a bit extreme to me. Can you give details on this
part..

> >>   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.

If you are depedent upon a symbol provided by a module you should say
depends on. If a machine is not supposed to have both SMD or GLINK then
the driver will not get probed.

-- 
~Vinod