| Message ID | 20130820033403.GD4587@cantor.us.oracle.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:34:03PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > On Tue Aug 20 13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Monday, August 19, 2013 04:35:29 PM Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > On Tue Aug 20 13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2013 09:16:14 AM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:26:35PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > Without MODULE_LICENSE set, I get the following with modprobe: > > > > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel. > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol i2c_new_device (err 0) > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_get_resources (err 0) > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_resource_interrupt (err 0) > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_free_resource_list (err 0) > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jerry.snitselaar@oracle.com> > > > > > > > > > > Looks good to me. > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Mika Westerbeg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > Well, OK, but do we need to be able to build that as a module? > > > > > > > > Maybe it should just be yes or no? > > > > > > > > Rafael > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps have depends on I2C=y and be a bool instead of tristate? > > > > Yes, that's the idea. > > > Does this look okay Mika? > > [PATCH] acpi_i2c: do not build as loadable module > > Change from tristate to bool, and depend on I2C=y I'm not sure about this. Does the below mean that we can't build the ACPI I2C enumeration at all if I2C core is compiled as module? > > Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jerry.snitselaar@oracle.com> > --- > drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > index 100bd72..183a309 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > @@ -181,8 +181,9 @@ config ACPI_DOCK > drive bays such as the IBM Ultrabay and the Dell Module Bay. > > config ACPI_I2C > - def_tristate I2C > - depends on I2C > + bool "I2C" > + depends on I2C=y > + default n > help > ACPI I2C enumeration support. > > -- > 1.8.4.rc3.2.g2c2b664 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue Aug 20 13, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:34:03PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > On Tue Aug 20 13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Monday, August 19, 2013 04:35:29 PM Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > On Tue Aug 20 13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2013 09:16:14 AM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:26:35PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > > Without MODULE_LICENSE set, I get the following with modprobe: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel. > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol i2c_new_device (err 0) > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_get_resources (err 0) > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_resource_interrupt (err 0) > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_free_resource_list (err 0) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jerry.snitselaar@oracle.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks good to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Mika Westerbeg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > Well, OK, but do we need to be able to build that as a module? > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it should just be yes or no? > > > > > > > > > > Rafael > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps have depends on I2C=y and be a bool instead of tristate? > > > > > > Yes, that's the idea. > > > > > Does this look okay Mika? > > > > [PATCH] acpi_i2c: do not build as loadable module > > > > Change from tristate to bool, and depend on I2C=y > > I'm not sure about this. Does the below mean that we can't build the ACPI > I2C enumeration at all if I2C core is compiled as module? Yes, that was what Rafael was suggesting. If the ability to compile as a module if I2C is a module is needed, then we need the 1st patch. Jerry > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jerry.snitselaar@oracle.com> > > --- > > drivers/acpi/Kconfig | 5 +++-- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > index 100bd72..183a309 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig > > @@ -181,8 +181,9 @@ config ACPI_DOCK > > drive bays such as the IBM Ultrabay and the Dell Module Bay. > > > > config ACPI_I2C > > - def_tristate I2C > > - depends on I2C > > + bool "I2C" > > + depends on I2C=y > > + default n > > help > > ACPI I2C enumeration support. > > > > -- > > 1.8.4.rc3.2.g2c2b664 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 01:00:08AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > On Tue Aug 20 13, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:34:03PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > On Tue Aug 20 13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2013 04:35:29 PM Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > On Tue Aug 20 13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2013 09:16:14 AM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:26:35PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > > > Without MODULE_LICENSE set, I get the following with modprobe: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel. > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol i2c_new_device (err 0) > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_get_resources (err 0) > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_resource_interrupt (err 0) > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_free_resource_list (err 0) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jerry.snitselaar@oracle.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks good to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Mika Westerbeg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, OK, but do we need to be able to build that as a module? > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it should just be yes or no? > > > > > > > > > > > > Rafael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps have depends on I2C=y and be a bool instead of tristate? > > > > > > > > Yes, that's the idea. > > > > > > > Does this look okay Mika? > > > > > > [PATCH] acpi_i2c: do not build as loadable module > > > > > > Change from tristate to bool, and depend on I2C=y > > > > I'm not sure about this. Does the below mean that we can't build the ACPI > > I2C enumeration at all if I2C core is compiled as module? > > Yes, that was what Rafael was suggesting. If the ability to compile as > a module if I2C is a module is needed, then we need the 1st patch. In that case I would prefer the first patch. Otherwise we lose the ability to enumerate I2C devices from ACPI namespace on some distros (at least Debian builds I2C core as a module). Rafael? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:14:42AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 01:00:08AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > On Tue Aug 20 13, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:34:03PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > On Tue Aug 20 13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2013 04:35:29 PM Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > On Tue Aug 20 13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2013 09:16:14 AM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:26:35PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > > > > Without MODULE_LICENSE set, I get the following with modprobe: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel. > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol i2c_new_device (err 0) > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_get_resources (err 0) > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_resource_interrupt (err 0) > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_free_resource_list (err 0) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jerry.snitselaar@oracle.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks good to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Mika Westerbeg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, OK, but do we need to be able to build that as a module? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it should just be yes or no? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rafael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps have depends on I2C=y and be a bool instead of tristate? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's the idea. > > > > > > > > > Does this look okay Mika? > > > > > > > > [PATCH] acpi_i2c: do not build as loadable module > > > > > > > > Change from tristate to bool, and depend on I2C=y > > > > > > I'm not sure about this. Does the below mean that we can't build the ACPI > > > I2C enumeration at all if I2C core is compiled as module? > > > > Yes, that was what Rafael was suggesting. If the ability to compile as > > a module if I2C is a module is needed, then we need the 1st patch. > > In that case I would prefer the first patch. Otherwise we lose the ability > to enumerate I2C devices from ACPI namespace on some distros (at least > Debian builds I2C core as a module). > > Rafael? Actually there's a patch that moves DT I2C helpers to the I2C core here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/19/349 we should probably do the same for the ACPI case. Doing that solves this problem as well. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 11:18:52 AM Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:14:42AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 01:00:08AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > On Tue Aug 20 13, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:34:03PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > On Tue Aug 20 13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2013 04:35:29 PM Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue Aug 20 13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2013 09:16:14 AM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:26:35PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Without MODULE_LICENSE set, I get the following with modprobe: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel. > > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol i2c_new_device (err 0) > > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_get_resources (err 0) > > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_resource_interrupt (err 0) > > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_free_resource_list (err 0) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jerry.snitselaar@oracle.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks good to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Mika Westerbeg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, OK, but do we need to be able to build that as a module? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it should just be yes or no? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rafael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps have depends on I2C=y and be a bool instead of tristate? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's the idea. > > > > > > > > > > > Does this look okay Mika? > > > > > > > > > > [PATCH] acpi_i2c: do not build as loadable module > > > > > > > > > > Change from tristate to bool, and depend on I2C=y > > > > > > > > I'm not sure about this. Does the below mean that we can't build the ACPI > > > > I2C enumeration at all if I2C core is compiled as module? > > > > > > Yes, that was what Rafael was suggesting. If the ability to compile as > > > a module if I2C is a module is needed, then we need the 1st patch. > > > > In that case I would prefer the first patch. Otherwise we lose the ability > > to enumerate I2C devices from ACPI namespace on some distros (at least > > Debian builds I2C core as a module). > > > > Rafael? > > Actually there's a patch that moves DT I2C helpers to the I2C core here: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/19/349 > > we should probably do the same for the ACPI case. Doing that solves this > problem as well. Yes, and I'd prefer it to be done this way. Having ACPI support as a separate module doesn't really buy us anything. Thanks, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig index 100bd72..183a309 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/acpi/Kconfig @@ -181,8 +181,9 @@ config ACPI_DOCK drive bays such as the IBM Ultrabay and the Dell Module Bay. config ACPI_I2C - def_tristate I2C - depends on I2C + bool "I2C" + depends on I2C=y + default n help ACPI I2C enumeration support.