| Message ID | 1363204102.1335.6.camel@x61.thuisdomein (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 20:48 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote: > Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> > --- > Untested. Perhaps the first test that people with access to the relevant > hardware might do, is to test _before applying this patch_ with FB_OMAP2 > set. Perhaps this negative dependency isn't needed at all. Or is it > obvious? > > drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) This patch was sent exactly three months ago, shortly after v3.9-rc2 was released. This obvious typo is still present in v3.10-rc5. I didn't received any feedback on this patch. Did anyone had a look at it? Is it perhaps queued somewhere? Paul Bolle > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig > index 09f65dc..45875a0 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > > config DRM_OMAP > tristate "OMAP DRM" > - depends on DRM && !CONFIG_FB_OMAP2 > + depends on DRM && !FB_OMAP2 > depends on ARCH_OMAP2PLUS || ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM > depends on OMAP2_DSS > select DRM_KMS_HELPER
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 08:48:22PM +0100, Paul Bolle wrote: > Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> > --- > Untested. Perhaps the first test that people with access to the relevant > hardware might do, is to test _before applying this patch_ with FB_OMAP2 > set. Perhaps this negative dependency isn't needed at all. Or is it > obvious? I don't think you need access to hardware to test this. Checking that the dependencies work properly (using menuconfig for example) and build testing should be enough. > drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig > index 09f65dc..45875a0 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > > config DRM_OMAP > tristate "OMAP DRM" > - depends on DRM && !CONFIG_FB_OMAP2 > + depends on DRM && !FB_OMAP2 > depends on ARCH_OMAP2PLUS || ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM > depends on OMAP2_DSS > select DRM_KMS_HELPER Regardless of whether the dependency is needed or not, the typo should be fixed, so: Reviewed-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> wrote: > On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 20:48 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> >> --- >> Untested. Perhaps the first test that people with access to the relevant >> hardware might do, is to test _before applying this patch_ with FB_OMAP2 >> set. Perhaps this negative dependency isn't needed at all. Or is it >> obvious? >> >> drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > This patch was sent exactly three months ago, shortly after v3.9-rc2 was > released. This obvious typo is still present in v3.10-rc5. > > I didn't received any feedback on this patch. Did anyone had a look at > it? Is it perhaps queued somewhere? oh, sorry, at the time I was in the middle of moving, and wasn't watching dri-devel so much. Yeah, this should probably either be merged, or we should just drop the negative dependency. (I guess in theory you could build both omapfb and omapdrm as modules and just load one.) BR -R > > Paul Bolle > >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig >> index 09f65dc..45875a0 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig >> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ >> >> config DRM_OMAP >> tristate "OMAP DRM" >> - depends on DRM && !CONFIG_FB_OMAP2 >> + depends on DRM && !FB_OMAP2 >> depends on ARCH_OMAP2PLUS || ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM >> depends on OMAP2_DSS >> select DRM_KMS_HELPER > > > _______________________________________________ > dri-devel mailing list > dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On 15/06/13 15:20, Rob Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> wrote: >> On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 20:48 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> >>> --- >>> Untested. Perhaps the first test that people with access to the relevant >>> hardware might do, is to test _before applying this patch_ with FB_OMAP2 >>> set. Perhaps this negative dependency isn't needed at all. Or is it >>> obvious? >>> >>> drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig | 2 +- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> This patch was sent exactly three months ago, shortly after v3.9-rc2 was >> released. This obvious typo is still present in v3.10-rc5. >> >> I didn't received any feedback on this patch. Did anyone had a look at >> it? Is it perhaps queued somewhere? > > oh, sorry, at the time I was in the middle of moving, and wasn't > watching dri-devel so much. > > Yeah, this should probably either be merged, or we should just drop > the negative dependency. (I guess in theory you could build both > omapfb and omapdrm as modules and just load one.) Hmm, fixing that creates a problem: drivers/video/Kconfig:42:error: recursive dependency detected! drivers/video/Kconfig:42: symbol FB is selected by DRM_KMS_HELPER drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig:29: symbol DRM_KMS_HELPER is selected by DRM_OMAP drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig:2: symbol DRM_OMAP depends on FB_OMAP2 drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/Kconfig:1: symbol FB_OMAP2 depends on FB And it makes selecting omapfb not possible... omapfb already has a !DRM_OMAP dependency. I think it's enough to have that one there, and remove the !FB_OMAP dependency from omapdrm. Tomi
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@iki.fi> wrote: > On 15/06/13 15:20, Rob Clark wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> wrote: >>> On Wed, 2013-03-13 at 20:48 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote: >>>> Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> >>>> --- >>>> Untested. Perhaps the first test that people with access to the relevant >>>> hardware might do, is to test _before applying this patch_ with FB_OMAP2 >>>> set. Perhaps this negative dependency isn't needed at all. Or is it >>>> obvious? >>>> >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> This patch was sent exactly three months ago, shortly after v3.9-rc2 was >>> released. This obvious typo is still present in v3.10-rc5. >>> >>> I didn't received any feedback on this patch. Did anyone had a look at >>> it? Is it perhaps queued somewhere? >> >> oh, sorry, at the time I was in the middle of moving, and wasn't >> watching dri-devel so much. >> >> Yeah, this should probably either be merged, or we should just drop >> the negative dependency. (I guess in theory you could build both >> omapfb and omapdrm as modules and just load one.) > > Hmm, fixing that creates a problem: > > drivers/video/Kconfig:42:error: recursive dependency detected! > drivers/video/Kconfig:42: symbol FB is selected by DRM_KMS_HELPER > drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig:29: symbol DRM_KMS_HELPER is selected by DRM_OMAP > drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig:2: symbol DRM_OMAP depends on FB_OMAP2 > drivers/video/omap2/omapfb/Kconfig:1: symbol FB_OMAP2 depends on FB > > And it makes selecting omapfb not possible... > > omapfb already has a !DRM_OMAP dependency. I think it's enough to have > that one there, and remove the !FB_OMAP dependency from omapdrm. I just nuked it upstream in drm-next. commit 2644ee9614be67abe155f1073bb9e1b737bbca53 Author: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Date: Fri Jun 28 12:08:10 2013 +1000 drm/omap: drop the !FB_OMAP2 dep This ends up causing circularity and really let people shoot themselves in the foot. Acked-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com> Dave. > > Tomi > >
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig index 09f65dc..45875a0 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ config DRM_OMAP tristate "OMAP DRM" - depends on DRM && !CONFIG_FB_OMAP2 + depends on DRM && !FB_OMAP2 depends on ARCH_OMAP2PLUS || ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM depends on OMAP2_DSS select DRM_KMS_HELPER
Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl> --- Untested. Perhaps the first test that people with access to the relevant hardware might do, is to test _before applying this patch_ with FB_OMAP2 set. Perhaps this negative dependency isn't needed at all. Or is it obvious? drivers/gpu/drm/omapdrm/Kconfig | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)