diff mbox

spi: sirf: add reset controller dependency

Message ID 4553005.HBquOfbqXe@wuerfel (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Arnd Bergmann Feb. 18, 2015, 3:29 p.m. UTC
The sirf spi driver only builds correctly if the reset controller
framework is available, otherwise we get an error:

drivers/spi/spi-sirf.c: In function 'spi_sirfsoc_probe':
drivers/spi/spi-sirf.c:651:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'device_reset' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]

The adds a dependency in Kconfig to prevent it from being selected
if the resets are not available.

Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Fixes:  8509c55fcb51 ("spi: sirf: reset SPI controller in init stage")


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Comments

Mark Brown Feb. 19, 2015, 9:41 a.m. UTC | #1
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 04:29:10PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> The adds a dependency in Kconfig to prevent it from being selected
> if the resets are not available.

Why is this a better fix than making the reset controller API stub
itself out?  It's probably not such a big deal here but for devices that
could be integrated into SoCs with and without reset controllers it
seems like we might want that.
Arnd Bergmann Feb. 19, 2015, 3:01 p.m. UTC | #2
On Thursday 19 February 2015 18:41:55 Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 04:29:10PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > The adds a dependency in Kconfig to prevent it from being selected
> > if the resets are not available.
> 
> Why is this a better fix than making the reset controller API stub
> itself out?  It's probably not such a big deal here but for devices that
> could be integrated into SoCs with and without reset controllers it
> seems like we might want that.

I would prefer that too, but it's not what the reset maintainer decided
to have, citing b424080a9e0 ("reset: Add optional resets and stubs"):
    
    This patch adds device_reset_optional and (devm_)reset_control_get_optional
    variants that drivers can use to indicate they can function without control
    over the reset line. For those functions, stubs are added so the drivers can
    be compiled with CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER disabled.
    Also, device_reset is annotated with __must_check. Drivers ignoring the return
    value should use device_reset_optional instead.
    
    Signed-off-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>
    Reviewed-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
    Reviewed-by: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
    Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>

So the stubs are provided for all functions except device_reset() and
reset_control_get(), and drivers using the API need to either call the
stubbed-out _optional() versions of these functions or have the explicit
dependency.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Mark Brown Feb. 21, 2015, 9:44 a.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 04:01:29PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> So the stubs are provided for all functions except device_reset() and
> reset_control_get(), and drivers using the API need to either call the
> stubbed-out _optional() versions of these functions or have the explicit
> dependency.

In that case a dependency seems wrong, I'd expect to see a select - it's
a bit obscure to have to grovel around to figure out what magic options
are needed to make things turn on and resets feel more like a utility
thing than a control bus (which tend to be the things we depend on).
Dunno, perhaps I'm wrong?
Arnd Bergmann Feb. 23, 2015, 10:01 p.m. UTC | #4
On Saturday 21 February 2015 18:44:58 Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 04:01:29PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > So the stubs are provided for all functions except device_reset() and
> > reset_control_get(), and drivers using the API need to either call the
> > stubbed-out _optional() versions of these functions or have the explicit
> > dependency.
> 
> In that case a dependency seems wrong, I'd expect to see a select - it's
> a bit obscure to have to grovel around to figure out what magic options
> are needed to make things turn on and resets feel more like a utility
> thing than a control bus (which tend to be the things we depend on).
> Dunno, perhaps I'm wrong?

Mixing 'select' and 'depends on' causes recursive dependencies, and
there are already lots of drivers that do 'depends on RESET_CONTROLLER'.

Most users of this symbol seem to follow the strategy of selecting
RESET_CONTROLLER when a driver is there to provide the functionality,
but depending on it when a driver uses it. We are however a bit
inconsistent here and it would be nice to clean it up.

In this particular patch, I'm just following what others do.

We should probably 'select ARCH_HAS_RESET_CONTROLLER' unconditionally
for ARM ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, as it's a bit silly to select both
ARCH_HAS_RESET_CONTROLLER and RESET_CONTROLLER from platform code.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Mark Brown Feb. 24, 2015, 7:50 a.m. UTC | #5
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:01:18PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 21 February 2015 18:44:58 Mark Brown wrote:

> > In that case a dependency seems wrong, I'd expect to see a select - it's
> > a bit obscure to have to grovel around to figure out what magic options
> > are needed to make things turn on and resets feel more like a utility
> > thing than a control bus (which tend to be the things we depend on).
> > Dunno, perhaps I'm wrong?

> Mixing 'select' and 'depends on' causes recursive dependencies, and
> there are already lots of drivers that do 'depends on RESET_CONTROLLER'.

Well, perhaps that's the cleanup we should be doing then...  one of the
big problems with some of the other randconfig work there's been is that
a lot of the patches just add dependencies without looking at if that
makes sense.

> Most users of this symbol seem to follow the strategy of selecting
> RESET_CONTROLLER when a driver is there to provide the functionality,
> but depending on it when a driver uses it. We are however a bit
> inconsistent here and it would be nice to clean it up.

Right, to me that feels the opposite way round to how we normally do
things - the drivers for the subsystem normally depend on the subsystem
(or are hidden by it).

> In this particular patch, I'm just following what others do.

> We should probably 'select ARCH_HAS_RESET_CONTROLLER' unconditionally
> for ARM ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, as it's a bit silly to select both
> ARCH_HAS_RESET_CONTROLLER and RESET_CONTROLLER from platform code.

That does seem a bit odd.  TBH I'm never sure that ARCH_HAS_ is that
good an idea for the driver things, most of them can just as reasonably
be used by off-SoC things.
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/spi/Kconfig b/drivers/spi/Kconfig
index ab8dfbef6f1b..b3ae90e4c03c 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/spi/Kconfig
@@ -507,6 +507,7 @@  config SPI_SH_HSPI
 config SPI_SIRF
 	tristate "CSR SiRFprimaII SPI controller"
 	depends on SIRF_DMA
+	depends on RESET_CONTROLLER
 	select SPI_BITBANG
 	help
 	  SPI driver for CSR SiRFprimaII SoCs