On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 1:53 AM Nick Crews <ncr...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 1:06 PM Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > When CROS_EC_LPC is set to =m, we get a link failure for a
> > builtin wilco-ec module:
> >
> > drivers/platform/chrome/wilco_ec/core.o: In function `wilco_ec_remove':
> > core.c:(.text+0x26): undefined reference to `cros_ec_lpc_mec_destroy'
> > drivers/platform/chrome/wilco_ec/core.o: In function `wilco_ec_probe':
> > core.c:(.text+0x18c): undefined reference to `cros_ec_lpc_mec_init'
> > core.c:(.text+0x224): undefined reference to `cros_ec_lpc_mec_destroy'
> > drivers/platform/chrome/wilco_ec/mailbox.o: In function `wilco_ec_mailbox':
> > mailbox.c:(.text+0x104): undefined reference to `cros_ec_lpc_io_bytes_mec'
> >
> > The problem with the existing CROS_EC_LPC_MEC dependency is that this
> > is only for a 'bool' symbol, so the information about the exported
> > functions being in a module is lost on the way, and we actually have
> > to depend on both CROS_EC_LPC and CROS_EC_LPC_MEC.
>
> Thanks for the catch Arnd. This looks like a workable solution, although it
> brings up a different question to me: Is it weird for a bool option
> (such as CROS_EC_LPC_MEC)
> to depend upon a tristate option (such as CROS_EC_LPC)?
No, not weird at all.
> It seems like
> CROS_EC_LPC_MEC
> should be tristate as well. Would changing this be a better solution?
No, that would actually break the code in a different way, since you
have:
drivers/platform/chrome/Makefile:cros_ec_lpcs-$(CONFIG_CROS_EC_LPC_MEC)
+= cros_ec_lpc_mec.o
drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_lpc_reg.c:#ifdef CONFIG_CROS_EC_LPC_MEC
drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_lpc_reg.c:#else /* CONFIG_CROS_EC_LPC_MEC */
drivers/platform/chrome/cros_ec_lpc_reg.c:#endif /* CONFIG_CROS_EC_LPC_MEC */
With CONFIG_CROS_EC_LPC_MEC=m, it would not get used
(CONFIG_CROS_EC_LPC_MEC ends up not defined in C code),
and it makes no sense to include a .o file in a loadable module
based on a tristate option.
Arnd
