Re: [PATCH] memory: OMAP_GPMC should depend on ARCH_OMAP2PLUS || ARCH_K3

[Roger Quadros]

On 10/05/2022 10:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10/05/2022 09:30, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 9:22 AM Roger Quadros <rogerq@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 09/05/2022 16:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>> The Texas Instruments OMAP General Purpose Memory Controller (GPMC) is
>>>> only present on TI OMAP2/3/4/5, AM33xx, AM43x, DRA7xx, TI81xx, and K3
>>>> SoCs.  Hence add a dependency on ARCH_OMAP2PLUS || ARCH_K3, to prevent
>>>> asking the user about this driver when configuring a kernel without
>>>> OMAP2+ or K3 SoC family support.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: be34f45f0d4aa91c ("memory: omap-gpmc: Make OMAP_GPMC config visible and selectable")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>>> --- a/drivers/memory/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/drivers/memory/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -105,6 +105,7 @@ config TI_EMIF
>>>>  config OMAP_GPMC
>>>>       tristate "Texas Instruments OMAP SoC GPMC driver"
>>>>       depends on OF_ADDRESS
>>>> +     depends on ARCH_OMAP2PLUS || ARCH_K3 || COMPILE_TEST
>>>>       select GPIOLIB
>>>>       help
>>>>         This driver is for the General Purpose Memory Controller (GPMC)
>>>
>>> Is there any possibility that CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN is not set while both
>>> OF_ADDRESS and COMPILE_TEST are set?
>>>
>>> That particular case will lead to build failures.
>>>
>>> e.g.
>>> https://krzk.eu/#/builders/63/builds/162
>>
>> So it needs an additional dependency on IRQ_DOMAIN.
>> That is a pre-existing problem, not caused by my patch (which adds
>> more dependencies, and doesn't remove any).
> 
> Is this really a case here? The failure reported above was for earlier
> version of Roger's patch which was changing to:
> 	depends on OF_ADDRESS || COMPILE_TEST
> 
> Here, OF_ADDRESS will be always a dependency. If it builds in current
> configuration (having only OF_ADDRESS), then adding dependencies should
> not cause more issues.... It only restricts the config, not widens it.
> 
> Therefore the patch looks actually correct, but some testing would be
> nice that we don't hit the same issues as before.
> 

I'll take care of the tests using lkp of course ;)

cheers,
-roger