Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] drm/bridge: sil_sii8620: make remote control optional.

[Life is hard, and then you die]

  Hi Andrzej,

On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 07:56:31AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> On 16.04.2019 01:24, Life is hard, and then you die wrote:
> >   Hi Andrzej,
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:58:09AM +0200, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
> >> On 15.04.2019 10:12, Ronald Tschalär wrote:
> >>> commit d6abe6df706c (drm/bridge: sil_sii8620: do not have a dependency
> >>> of RC_CORE) changed the driver to select both RC_CORE and INPUT.
> >>> However, this causes problems with other drivers, in particular an input
> >>> driver that depends on MFD_INTEL_LPSS_PCI (to be added in a separate
> >>> commit):
> >>>
> >>>   drivers/clk/Kconfig:9:error: recursive dependency detected!
> >>>   drivers/clk/Kconfig:9:        symbol COMMON_CLK is selected by MFD_INTEL_LPSS
> >>>   drivers/mfd/Kconfig:566:      symbol MFD_INTEL_LPSS is selected by MFD_INTEL_LPSS_PCI
> >>>   drivers/mfd/Kconfig:580:      symbol MFD_INTEL_LPSS_PCI is implied by KEYBOARD_APPLESPI
> >>>   drivers/input/keyboard/Kconfig:73:    symbol KEYBOARD_APPLESPI depends on INPUT
> >>>   drivers/input/Kconfig:8:      symbol INPUT is selected by DRM_SIL_SII8620
> >>>   drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Kconfig:83:    symbol DRM_SIL_SII8620 depends on DRM_BRIDGE
> >>>   drivers/gpu/drm/bridge/Kconfig:1:     symbol DRM_BRIDGE is selected by DRM_PL111
> >>>   drivers/gpu/drm/pl111/Kconfig:1:      symbol DRM_PL111 depends on COMMON_CLK
> >>>
> >>> According to the docs and general consensus, select should only be used
> >>> for non user-visible symbols, but both RC_CORE and INPUT are
> >>> user-visible. Furthermore almost all other references to INPUT
> >>> throughout the kernel config are depends, not selects. For this reason
> >>> the first part of this change reverts commit d6abe6df706c.
> >>>
> >>> In order to address the original reason for commit d6abe6df706c, namely
> >>> that not all boards use the remote controller functionality and hence
> >>> should not need have to deal with RC_CORE, the second part of this
> >>> change now makes the remote control support in the driver optional and
> >>> contingent on RC_CORE being defined. And with this the hard dependency
> >>> on INPUT also goes away as that is only needed if RC_CORE is defined
> >>> (which in turn already depends on INPUT).
> >>>
> >>> CC: Inki Dae <inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> CC: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> CC: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> CC: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ronald Tschalär <ronald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Thanks for your reviews!
> >
> >> If there are no objections I will take it to drm-misc tomorrow.
> > This brings us back to the discussion started in response to the first
> > version of my patch (see
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190124082423.23139-1-ronald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#m24f45fecd987a787a9554c8088f463fd10de2b00).
> > To recap: the problem is that the applespi patch depends on this patch
> > here, as make-config will break as described above otherwise. So if
> > this patch is submitted through drm-misc, then it's unclear to me how
> > to ensure that the two patches make it upstream in proper order,
> > unless the applespi patch is also upstreamed through drm-misc, or the
> > Kconfig for applespi is (temporarily) modified to not trigger the
> > config error and another patch is later submitted to fix the Kconfig
> > again (which seems somewhat ugly to me). Assuming that consensus is to
> > merge both patches through one tree, then it would seem that because
> > this patch here is relatively small that maybe it could be merged
> > through the input tree along with the applespi patch?
> 
> 
> Oh, I have forgot. Please take it then via input tree.

Thank you!


  Cheers,

  Ronald