On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 03:21:53PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 12:54 AM Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 09, 2020 at 08:28:45PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 7:18 AM Will Deacon <w...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:10:39AM +0000, John Stultz wrote: > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/Kconfig b/drivers/iommu/Kconfig > > > > > index b510f67dfa49..714893535dd2 100644 > > > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/Kconfig > > > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/Kconfig > > > > > @@ -381,6 +381,7 @@ config SPAPR_TCE_IOMMU > > > > > config ARM_SMMU > > > > > tristate "ARM Ltd. System MMU (SMMU) Support" > > > > > depends on (ARM64 || ARM || (COMPILE_TEST && > > > > > !GENERIC_ATOMIC64)) && MMU > > > > > + depends on QCOM_SCM || !QCOM_SCM #if QCOM_SCM=m this can't be =y > > > > > select IOMMU_API > > > > > select IOMMU_IO_PGTABLE_LPAE > > > > > select ARM_DMA_USE_IOMMU if ARM > > > > > > > > This looks like a giant hack. Is there another way to handle this? > > > > > > Sorry for the slow response here. > > > > > > So, I agree the syntax looks strange (requiring a comment obviously > > > isn't a good sign), but it's a fairly common way to ensure drivers > > > don't get built in if they optionally depend on another driver that > > > can be built as a module. > > > See "RFKILL || !RFKILL", "EXTCON || !EXTCON", or "USB_GADGET || > > > !USB_GADGET" in various Kconfig files. > > > > > > I'm open to using a different method, and in a different thread you > > > suggested using something like symbol_get(). I need to look into it > > > more, but that approach looks even more messy and prone to runtime > > > failures. Blocking the unwanted case at build time seems a bit cleaner > > > to me, even if the syntax is odd. > > > > Maybe just split it out then, so that the ARM_SMMU entry doesn't have this, > > as that driver _really_ doesn't care about SoC details like this. In other > > words, add a new entry along the lines of: > > > > config ARM_SMMU_QCOM_IMPL > > default y > > #if QCOM_SCM=m this can't be =y > > depends on ARM_SMMU & (QCOM_SCM || !QCOM_SCM) > > > > and then have arm-smmu.h provide a static inline qcom_smmu_impl_init() > > which returns -ENODEV if CONFIG_ARM_SMMU_QCOM_IMPL=n and hack the Makefile > > so that we don't bother to compile arm-smmu-qcom.o in that case. > > > > Would that work? > > I think this proposal still has problems with the directionality of the call. > > The arm-smmu-impl.o calls to arm-smmu-qcom.o which calls qcom_scm.o > So if qcom_scm.o is part of a module, the calling code in > arm-smmu-qcom.o also needs to be a module, which means CONFIG_ARM_SMMU > needs to be a module. > > I know you said the arm-smmu driver doesn't care about SoC details, > but the trouble is that currently the arm-smmu driver does directly > call the qcom-scm code. So it is a real dependency. However, if > QCOM_SCM is not configured, it calls stubs and that's ok. In that > way, the "depends on QCOM_SCM || !QCOM_SCM" line actually makes sense. > It looks terrible because we're used to boolean logic, but it's > ternary.
Yes, it looks ugly, but the part I really have issues with is that building QCOM_SCM=m and ARM_SMMU=y is perfectly fine if you don't run on an SoC with the qcom implementation. I don't see why we need to enforce things here beyond making sure that all selectable permutations _build_ and fail gracefully at runtime on the qcom SoC if SCM isn't available. Will _______________________________________________ iommu mailing list iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
