Re: [PATCH] firmware: QCOM_SCM: Allow qcom_scm driver to be loadable as a permenent module
From: Saravana Kannan
Date: Wed Jul 21 2021 - 14:00:57 EST
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 10:24 AM John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 4:54 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 04:53:20AM +0000, John Stultz wrote:
> > > Allow the qcom_scm driver to be loadable as a permenent module.
> > This feels like a regression, it should be allowed to be a module.
> I'm sorry, I'm not sure I'm following you, Greg. This patch is trying
> to enable the driver to be able to be loaded as a module.
I think the mix up might be that Greg mentally read "permanent module"
"permanent module" is just something that can't be unloaded once it's
loaded. It's not "builtin".
> > > This still uses the "depends on QCOM_SCM || !QCOM_SCM" bit to
> > > ensure that drivers that call into the qcom_scm driver are
> > > also built as modules. While not ideal in some cases its the
> > > only safe way I can find to avoid build errors without having
> > > those drivers select QCOM_SCM and have to force it on (as
> > > QCOM_SCM=n can be valid for those drivers).
> > >
> > > Reviving this now that Saravana's fw_devlink defaults to on,
> > > which should avoid loading troubles seen before.
> > fw_devlink was supposed to resolve these issues and _allow_ code to be
> > built as modules and not forced to be built into the kernel.
> Right. I'm re-submitting this patch to enable a driver to work as a
> module, because earlier attempts to submit it ran into boot trouble
> because fw_devlink wasn't yet enabled.
> I worry something in my description made it seem otherwise, so let me
> know how you read it and I'll try to avoid such confusion in the