Message ID | 20180511091715.1989-1-zajec5@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Accepted |
Commit | 36910d82a80c1c0c61e505c6d3ecaa901ee13a26 |
Delegated to: | Kalle Valo |
Headers | show |
On 11 May 2018 at 11:17, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> > > This reverts commit 882164a4a928bcaa53280940436ca476e6b1db8e. > > Above commit added "SSB = y" dependency to the wrong symbol > SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE_POSSIBLE and prevented SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE from being > selected when needed. PCI core driver for core running in clienthost > mode is important for bus initialization. It's perfectly valid scenario > to have ssb built as module and use it with buses on PCI cards. > > This fixes regression that affected all *module* users with PCI cards. > > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572349 > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> As these patches fix regression/build error, I believe both should get into 4.17.
Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes: > On 11 May 2018 at 11:17, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote: >> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >> >> This reverts commit 882164a4a928bcaa53280940436ca476e6b1db8e. >> >> Above commit added "SSB = y" dependency to the wrong symbol >> SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE_POSSIBLE and prevented SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE from being >> selected when needed. PCI core driver for core running in clienthost >> mode is important for bus initialization. It's perfectly valid scenario >> to have ssb built as module and use it with buses on PCI cards. >> >> This fixes regression that affected all *module* users with PCI cards. >> >> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572349 >> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> > > As these patches fix regression/build error, I believe both should get > into 4.17. How much confidence do we have that we don't need to end up reverting patch 2 as well? I rather be pushing patch 2 to 4.18 so that there's more time for testing and waiting for feedback.
On 11 May 2018 at 12:13, Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote: > Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 11 May 2018 at 11:17, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote: >>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >>> >>> This reverts commit 882164a4a928bcaa53280940436ca476e6b1db8e. >>> >>> Above commit added "SSB = y" dependency to the wrong symbol >>> SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE_POSSIBLE and prevented SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE from being >>> selected when needed. PCI core driver for core running in clienthost >>> mode is important for bus initialization. It's perfectly valid scenario >>> to have ssb built as module and use it with buses on PCI cards. >>> >>> This fixes regression that affected all *module* users with PCI cards. >>> >>> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572349 >>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >> >> As these patches fix regression/build error, I believe both should get >> into 4.17. > > How much confidence do we have that we don't need to end up reverting > patch 2 as well? I rather be pushing patch 2 to 4.18 so that there's > more time for testing and waiting for feedback. Solution from 2/2 seems pretty obvious. 1) Enabling SSB_PCICORE_HOSTMODE compiles code that requires non-exported symbols. Requiring "SSB = y" seems pretty obvious. 2) As pointed in another e-mail bcma has pretty identical solution that seems to be working well, see commit 79ca239a68f8f ("bcma: Prevent build of PCI host features in module"). That's just my opinion though, I shared since you asked. If you prefer to queue that for 4.18, I'm OK. After all: 1) This problem affects MIPS arch only 2) It can be fixed by not selecting BCMA_DRIVER_PCI_HOSTMODE for SSB = m
On 05/11/2018 05:13 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 11 May 2018 at 11:17, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote: >>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >>> >>> This reverts commit 882164a4a928bcaa53280940436ca476e6b1db8e. >>> >>> Above commit added "SSB = y" dependency to the wrong symbol >>> SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE_POSSIBLE and prevented SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE from being >>> selected when needed. PCI core driver for core running in clienthost >>> mode is important for bus initialization. It's perfectly valid scenario >>> to have ssb built as module and use it with buses on PCI cards. >>> >>> This fixes regression that affected all *module* users with PCI cards. >>> >>> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572349 >>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >> >> As these patches fix regression/build error, I believe both should get >> into 4.17. > > How much confidence do we have that we don't need to end up reverting > patch 2 as well? I rather be pushing patch 2 to 4.18 so that there's > more time for testing and waiting for feedback. Although I do not have the hardware to test the builds, I worked closely with the OP in the bug at b.r.c noted above. From that effort, it became clear what configuration variables were missing to cause the x86 failures. Patch 2 satisfies the requirement, and prevents the build problems found by the MIPS users. Both patches are needed in 4.17. Larry
Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> writes: > On 05/11/2018 05:13 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 11 May 2018 at 11:17, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >>>> >>>> This reverts commit 882164a4a928bcaa53280940436ca476e6b1db8e. >>>> >>>> Above commit added "SSB = y" dependency to the wrong symbol >>>> SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE_POSSIBLE and prevented SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE from being >>>> selected when needed. PCI core driver for core running in clienthost >>>> mode is important for bus initialization. It's perfectly valid scenario >>>> to have ssb built as module and use it with buses on PCI cards. >>>> >>>> This fixes regression that affected all *module* users with PCI cards. >>>> >>>> Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572349 >>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> >>> >>> As these patches fix regression/build error, I believe both should get >>> into 4.17. >> >> How much confidence do we have that we don't need to end up reverting >> patch 2 as well? I rather be pushing patch 2 to 4.18 so that there's >> more time for testing and waiting for feedback. > > Although I do not have the hardware to test the builds, I worked > closely with the OP in the bug at b.r.c noted above. From that effort, > it became clear what configuration variables were missing to cause the > x86 failures. Patch 2 satisfies the requirement, and prevents the > build problems found by the MIPS users. Both patches are needed in > 4.17. And I assume Michael is ok with this approach as well as I haven't heard from him. I'll then push both of these to 4.17.
On Sat, 12 May 2018 10:50:42 +0300 Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote: > Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> writes: > > > On 05/11/2018 05:13 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes: > >> > >>> On 11 May 2018 at 11:17, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote: > [...] > >>> > >>> As these patches fix regression/build error, I believe both should get > >>> into 4.17. > >> > >> How much confidence do we have that we don't need to end up reverting > >> patch 2 as well? I rather be pushing patch 2 to 4.18 so that there's > >> more time for testing and waiting for feedback. > > > > Although I do not have the hardware to test the builds, I worked > > closely with the OP in the bug at b.r.c noted above. From that effort, > > it became clear what configuration variables were missing to cause the > > x86 failures. Patch 2 satisfies the requirement, and prevents the > > build problems found by the MIPS users. Both patches are needed in > > 4.17. > > And I assume Michael is ok with this approach as well as I haven't heard > from him. I'll then push both of these to 4.17. > Yes, I'm OK with the patch, if we have a third patch that cleans up the PCI_DRIVERS_LEGACY dependency by moving it to SSB_PCICORE_HOSTMODE where it belongs. (This doesn't need to go into the stable tree.) We currently implicitly get that via dependency chain, so this is OK for now as-is.
Rafał Miłecki wrote: > From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> > > This reverts commit 882164a4a928bcaa53280940436ca476e6b1db8e. > > Above commit added "SSB = y" dependency to the wrong symbol > SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE_POSSIBLE and prevented SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE from being > selected when needed. PCI core driver for core running in clienthost > mode is important for bus initialization. It's perfectly valid scenario > to have ssb built as module and use it with buses on PCI cards. > > This fixes regression that affected all *module* users with PCI cards. > > Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572349 > Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> 2 patches applied to wireless-drivers.git, thanks. 36910d82a80c Revert "ssb: Prevent build of PCI host features in module" ebd27d3317c6 ssb: make SSB_PCICORE_HOSTMODE depend on SSB = y
On 2018-05-12 10:01, Michael Büsch wrote: > On Sat, 12 May 2018 10:50:42 +0300 > Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org> wrote: > >> Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net> writes: >> >> > On 05/11/2018 05:13 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: >> >> Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> writes: >> >> >> >>> On 11 May 2018 at 11:17, Rafał Miłecki <zajec5@gmail.com> wrote: >> [...] >> >>> >> >>> As these patches fix regression/build error, I believe both should get >> >>> into 4.17. >> >> >> >> How much confidence do we have that we don't need to end up reverting >> >> patch 2 as well? I rather be pushing patch 2 to 4.18 so that there's >> >> more time for testing and waiting for feedback. >> > >> > Although I do not have the hardware to test the builds, I worked >> > closely with the OP in the bug at b.r.c noted above. From that effort, >> > it became clear what configuration variables were missing to cause the >> > x86 failures. Patch 2 satisfies the requirement, and prevents the >> > build problems found by the MIPS users. Both patches are needed in >> > 4.17. >> >> And I assume Michael is ok with this approach as well as I haven't >> heard >> from him. I'll then push both of these to 4.17. >> > > Yes, I'm OK with the patch, if we have a third patch that cleans up the > PCI_DRIVERS_LEGACY dependency by moving it to SSB_PCICORE_HOSTMODE > where it belongs. (This doesn't need to go into the stable tree.) > We currently implicitly get that via dependency chain, so this is OK > for now as-is. I'm planning to handle PCI_DRIVERS_LEGACY cleanup once my patches hit net-next.git and then wireless-drivers-next.git. It's to avoid conflicts.
On Sat, 12 May 2018 12:00:07 +0200 Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl> wrote: > > Yes, I'm OK with the patch, if we have a third patch that cleans up the > > PCI_DRIVERS_LEGACY dependency by moving it to SSB_PCICORE_HOSTMODE > > where it belongs. (This doesn't need to go into the stable tree.) > > We currently implicitly get that via dependency chain, so this is OK > > for now as-is. > > I'm planning to handle PCI_DRIVERS_LEGACY cleanup once my patches hit > net-next.git and then wireless-drivers-next.git. It's to avoid > conflicts. Yes, thanks. Take your time. We're not in a hurry. :) This change should not make a functional difference.
diff --git a/drivers/ssb/Kconfig b/drivers/ssb/Kconfig index 9371651d8017..b3f5cae98ea6 100644 --- a/drivers/ssb/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/ssb/Kconfig @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ config SSB_SERIAL config SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE_POSSIBLE bool - depends on SSB_PCIHOST && SSB = y + depends on SSB_PCIHOST default y config SSB_DRIVER_PCICORE