From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Compile-testing drivers that require access to a firmware layer
fails when that firmware symbol is unavailable. This happened
twice this week:
- My proposed to change to rework the QCOM_SCM firmware symbol
broke on ppc64 and others.
- The cs_dsp firmware patch added device specific firmware loader
into drivers/firmware, which broke on the same set of
architectures.
We should probably do the same thing for other subsystems as well,
but fix this one first as this is a dependency for other patches
getting merged.
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>
Cc: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>
Cc: Simon Trimmer <simont@opensource.cirrus.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
Not sure how we'd want to merge this patch, if two other things
need it. I'd prefer to merge it along with the QCOM_SCM change
through the soc tree, but that leaves the cirrus firmware broken
unless we also merge it the same way (rather than through ASoC
as it is now).
Alternatively, we can try to find a different home for the Cirrus
firmware to decouple the two problems. I'd argue that it's actually
misplaced here, as drivers/firmware is meant for kernel code that
interfaces with system firmware, not for device drivers to load
their own firmware blobs from user space.
---
arch/arm/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/arm64/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/ia64/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/mips/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/parisc/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/riscv/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/x86/Kconfig | 2 --
drivers/Kconfig | 2 ++
8 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
From: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com> Date: 2021-09-28 08:39:06
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 09:50:26AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Compile-testing drivers that require access to a firmware layer
fails when that firmware symbol is unavailable. This happened
twice this week:
- My proposed to change to rework the QCOM_SCM firmware symbol
broke on ppc64 and others.
- The cs_dsp firmware patch added device specific firmware loader
into drivers/firmware, which broke on the same set of
architectures.
We should probably do the same thing for other subsystems as well,
but fix this one first as this is a dependency for other patches
getting merged.
Not sure how we'd want to merge this patch, if two other things
need it. I'd prefer to merge it along with the QCOM_SCM change
through the soc tree, but that leaves the cirrus firmware broken
unless we also merge it the same way (rather than through ASoC
as it is now).
Alternatively, we can try to find a different home for the Cirrus
firmware to decouple the two problems. I'd argue that it's actually
misplaced here, as drivers/firmware is meant for kernel code that
interfaces with system firmware, not for device drivers to load
their own firmware blobs from user space.
Thanks for looking at this for us. I don't think we are greatly
attached to drivers/firmware as a location. Essentially, what we
have is some firmware parsing code that needs to be shared across
several devices, previously this was just in the sound subsystem as
all our parts were audio. We are going to shortly be upstreaming
some non-audio parts that use the same firmware infrastructure
and it didn't seem very sensible to have them including bits of
the audio subsystem.
I guess the question might be where else would said code go?
drivers/firmware seemed most obvious, all the other locations
I can think of don't really make sense. Can't really put it a bus
like spi/i2c etc. because we have parts on many buses. Can't
really put it in a functional subsystem (audio/input etc.) since
the whole idea was to try and get some independence from that so
we don't have parts including subsystems they don't use. Could
maybe put it in MFD, but no hard guarantee every part using it
will be an MFD device and I am fairly confident Lee will feel it
isn't MFD code as it doesn't relate to managing multiple devices.
Only other option I can think of would be to make some sort of
drivers/dsp or maybe drivers/cs_dsp, but not clear to me that is
obviously better than using drivers/firmware.
Thanks,
Charles
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:37 AM Charles Keepax
[off-list ref] wrote:
Thanks for looking at this for us. I don't think we are greatly
attached to drivers/firmware as a location. Essentially, what we
have is some firmware parsing code that needs to be shared across
several devices, previously this was just in the sound subsystem as
all our parts were audio. We are going to shortly be upstreaming
some non-audio parts that use the same firmware infrastructure
and it didn't seem very sensible to have them including bits of
the audio subsystem.
I guess the question might be where else would said code go?
drivers/firmware seemed most obvious, all the other locations
I can think of don't really make sense. Can't really put it a bus
like spi/i2c etc. because we have parts on many buses. Can't
really put it in a functional subsystem (audio/input etc.) since
the whole idea was to try and get some independence from that so
we don't have parts including subsystems they don't use. Could
maybe put it in MFD, but no hard guarantee every part using it
will be an MFD device and I am fairly confident Lee will feel it
isn't MFD code as it doesn't relate to managing multiple devices.
Only other option I can think of would be to make some sort of
drivers/dsp or maybe drivers/cs_dsp, but not clear to me that is
obviously better than using drivers/firmware.
Other DSPs use the drivers/remoteproc/ subsystem, but that
is more for general-purpose DSPs that can load application
specific firmware rather than loading a single firmware blob
as you'd normally do with the request_firmware() style interface.
Not sure if that fits what you do. Can you point to a high-level
description of what this DSP does besides audio, and how
flexible it is? That might help find the right place for this.
Arnd
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com> Date: 2021-09-28 09:24:57
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:51:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:37 AM Charles Keepax
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
I guess the question might be where else would said code go?
drivers/firmware seemed most obvious, all the other locations
I can think of don't really make sense. Can't really put it a bus
like spi/i2c etc. because we have parts on many buses. Can't
really put it in a functional subsystem (audio/input etc.) since
the whole idea was to try and get some independence from that so
we don't have parts including subsystems they don't use. Could
maybe put it in MFD, but no hard guarantee every part using it
will be an MFD device and I am fairly confident Lee will feel it
isn't MFD code as it doesn't relate to managing multiple devices.
Only other option I can think of would be to make some sort of
drivers/dsp or maybe drivers/cs_dsp, but not clear to me that is
obviously better than using drivers/firmware.
Other DSPs use the drivers/remoteproc/ subsystem, but that
is more for general-purpose DSPs that can load application
specific firmware rather than loading a single firmware blob
as you'd normally do with the request_firmware() style interface.
Not sure if that fits what you do. Can you point to a high-level
description of what this DSP does besides audio, and how
flexible it is? That might help find the right place for this.
Hm... wasn't aware of that one, we should probably investigate that
a little more at this end. From a quick look, seems a bit more like
it is designed for much larger more general purpose probably memory
mapped DSPs. I guess our code is a little more firmware parsing
and loading, and a bit less generic remote proceedure call stuff.
I am not sure there is great deal available publically on the
DSP core. It is talked about in a few of our datasheets, see
section 4.4 in [1]. But a basic description might be it is a
signal processing focused, very small DSP core. If can be loaded
with different firmwares at runtime, and indeed might be doing say
echo cancellation in one use-case, or always on voice detect in
another. Functionally it is very unlikely to be used for anything
besides signal processing inside the device it is in, since it is
typically quite integrated with that hardware and will be sitting
behind a slow bus, like I2C or SPI.
Current users are all audio, planning to upstream some haptics
parts soon, with possible other uses in the future.
[1] https://statics.cirrus.com/pubs/proDatasheet/CS48L32_DS1219F4.pdf
Thanks,
Charles
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Date: 2021-09-28 11:26:10
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 09:24:00AM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:51:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
quoted
Other DSPs use the drivers/remoteproc/ subsystem, but that
is more for general-purpose DSPs that can load application
specific firmware rather than loading a single firmware blob
as you'd normally do with the request_firmware() style interface.
quoted
Not sure if that fits what you do. Can you point to a high-level
description of what this DSP does besides audio, and how
flexible it is? That might help find the right place for this.
Hm... wasn't aware of that one, we should probably investigate that
a little more at this end. From a quick look, seems a bit more like
it is designed for much larger more general purpose probably memory
mapped DSPs. I guess our code is a little more firmware parsing
and loading, and a bit less generic remote proceedure call stuff.
Right, that was why I didn't suggest remoteproc - the DSPs wm_adsp
covers seem much smaller than fits comfortably with remoteproc. You
probably could make it fit though.
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Date: 2021-09-28 11:59:48
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 09:50:26AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Compile-testing drivers that require access to a firmware layer
fails when that firmware symbol is unavailable. This happened
twice this week:
...
We should probably do the same thing for other subsystems as well,
but fix this one first as this is a dependency for other patches
getting merged.
Reviwed-by: Mark Brown [off-list ref]
Regardless of what we do with the Cirrus DSP this just seems like a good
idea - surprises due to this not being generally available keep coming
up, IIRC with the i.MX firmware in the past for example.
Not sure how we'd want to merge this patch, if two other things
need it. I'd prefer to merge it along with the QCOM_SCM change
through the soc tree, but that leaves the cirrus firmware broken
unless we also merge it the same way (rather than through ASoC
as it is now).
We could also merge a tag into both places.
Alternatively, we can try to find a different home for the Cirrus
firmware to decouple the two problems. I'd argue that it's actually
misplaced here, as drivers/firmware is meant for kernel code that
interfaces with system firmware, not for device drivers to load
their own firmware blobs from user space.
Trying to enforce distinctions here feels like it's liable to lead to
trouble at some point...
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 1:58 PM Mark Brown [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 09:50:26AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
quoted
Not sure how we'd want to merge this patch, if two other things
need it. I'd prefer to merge it along with the QCOM_SCM change
through the soc tree, but that leaves the cirrus firmware broken
unless we also merge it the same way (rather than through ASoC
as it is now).
We could also merge a tag into both places.
I wonder if I should just take my two patches as bugfixes for 5.15,
after all they do address real build failures. In that case, all you need
is a merge with 5.15-rc4 or higher.
Arnd
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Date: 2021-09-29 10:17:48
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 09:50:26AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Compile-testing drivers that require access to a firmware layer
fails when that firmware symbol is unavailable. This happened
twice this week:
- My proposed to change to rework the QCOM_SCM firmware symbol
broke on ppc64 and others.
- The cs_dsp firmware patch added device specific firmware loader
into drivers/firmware, which broke on the same set of
architectures.
We should probably do the same thing for other subsystems as well,
but fix this one first as this is a dependency for other patches
getting merged.
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>
Cc: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>
Cc: Simon Trimmer <simont@opensource.cirrus.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
Not sure how we'd want to merge this patch, if two other things
need it. I'd prefer to merge it along with the QCOM_SCM change
through the soc tree, but that leaves the cirrus firmware broken
unless we also merge it the same way (rather than through ASoC
as it is now).
Alternatively, we can try to find a different home for the Cirrus
firmware to decouple the two problems. I'd argue that it's actually
misplaced here, as drivers/firmware is meant for kernel code that
interfaces with system firmware, not for device drivers to load
their own firmware blobs from user space.
---
arch/arm/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/arm64/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/ia64/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/mips/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/parisc/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/riscv/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/x86/Kconfig | 2 --
drivers/Kconfig | 2 ++
8 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
On Tue 28 Sep 04:24 CDT 2021, Charles Keepax wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:51:36AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 10:37 AM Charles Keepax
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
I guess the question might be where else would said code go?
drivers/firmware seemed most obvious, all the other locations
I can think of don't really make sense. Can't really put it a bus
like spi/i2c etc. because we have parts on many buses. Can't
really put it in a functional subsystem (audio/input etc.) since
the whole idea was to try and get some independence from that so
we don't have parts including subsystems they don't use. Could
maybe put it in MFD, but no hard guarantee every part using it
will be an MFD device and I am fairly confident Lee will feel it
isn't MFD code as it doesn't relate to managing multiple devices.
Only other option I can think of would be to make some sort of
drivers/dsp or maybe drivers/cs_dsp, but not clear to me that is
obviously better than using drivers/firmware.
Other DSPs use the drivers/remoteproc/ subsystem, but that
is more for general-purpose DSPs that can load application
specific firmware rather than loading a single firmware blob
as you'd normally do with the request_firmware() style interface.
Not sure if that fits what you do. Can you point to a high-level
description of what this DSP does besides audio, and how
flexible it is? That might help find the right place for this.
Hm... wasn't aware of that one, we should probably investigate that
a little more at this end. From a quick look, seems a bit more like
it is designed for much larger more general purpose probably memory
mapped DSPs. I guess our code is a little more firmware parsing
and loading, and a bit less generic remote proceedure call stuff.
You're correct, remoteproc tends to situations where you have
multi-function firmware; be it at a single point in time, or due to
different firmware choices. Where you essentially boot some firmware on
the remoteproc and from that instantiate one of more functional devices
based on the loaded firmware.
I am not sure there is great deal available publically on the
DSP core. It is talked about in a few of our datasheets, see
section 4.4 in [1]. But a basic description might be it is a
signal processing focused, very small DSP core. If can be loaded
with different firmwares at runtime, and indeed might be doing say
echo cancellation in one use-case, or always on voice detect in
another. Functionally it is very unlikely to be used for anything
besides signal processing inside the device it is in, since it is
typically quite integrated with that hardware and will be sitting
behind a slow bus, like I2C or SPI.
To me it sounds like the main difference compared to above is that you
have a single function that owns and controls the DSP and implements
that function - i.e. the audio driver probes, boots the DSP, if there's
a problem the audio driver will handle it etc.
When it comes to firmware parsing, that might be a somewhat unrelated
topic. E.g. in the Qualcomm case, the same customized ELF header is used
in both for remoteproc devices and in function-specific devices. For
this we extracted the relevant functions into a library of some common
helpers, which can be found in drivers/soc/qcom/mdt_loader.c.
Regards,
Bjorn
On Tue 28 Sep 07:22 CDT 2021, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 1:58 PM Mark Brown [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 09:50:26AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
quoted
Not sure how we'd want to merge this patch, if two other things
need it. I'd prefer to merge it along with the QCOM_SCM change
through the soc tree, but that leaves the cirrus firmware broken
unless we also merge it the same way (rather than through ASoC
as it is now).
We could also merge a tag into both places.
I wonder if I should just take my two patches as bugfixes for 5.15,
after all they do address real build failures. In that case, all you need
is a merge with 5.15-rc4 or higher.
I'm in favor of this, better get it over with.
With QCOM_IOMMU fixed up as well, feel free to add my
Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <redacted>
on both the patches, and for the qcom_scm changes you have my
Acked-by: Bjorn Andersson <redacted>
Thanks,
Bjorn
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com> Date: 2021-10-06 08:30:36
On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 09:50:26AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Compile-testing drivers that require access to a firmware layer
fails when that firmware symbol is unavailable. This happened
twice this week:
- My proposed to change to rework the QCOM_SCM firmware symbol
broke on ppc64 and others.
- The cs_dsp firmware patch added device specific firmware loader
into drivers/firmware, which broke on the same set of
architectures.
We should probably do the same thing for other subsystems as well,
but fix this one first as this is a dependency for other patches
getting merged.
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>
Cc: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>
Cc: Simon Trimmer <simont@opensource.cirrus.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
Reviewed-by: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>
Thanks,
Charles
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Paul Menzel <hidden> Date: 2021-10-09 09:24:16
[Cc: +linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org]
Dear Arnd,
Am 28.09.21 um 09:50 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
quoted hunk
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Compile-testing drivers that require access to a firmware layer
fails when that firmware symbol is unavailable. This happened
twice this week:
- My proposed to change to rework the QCOM_SCM firmware symbol
broke on ppc64 and others.
- The cs_dsp firmware patch added device specific firmware loader
into drivers/firmware, which broke on the same set of
architectures.
We should probably do the same thing for other subsystems as well,
but fix this one first as this is a dependency for other patches
getting merged.
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
Cc: Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@gmail.com>
Cc: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.cirrus.com>
Cc: Simon Trimmer <simont@opensource.cirrus.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
---
Not sure how we'd want to merge this patch, if two other things
need it. I'd prefer to merge it along with the QCOM_SCM change
through the soc tree, but that leaves the cirrus firmware broken
unless we also merge it the same way (rather than through ASoC
as it is now).
Alternatively, we can try to find a different home for the Cirrus
firmware to decouple the two problems. I'd argue that it's actually
misplaced here, as drivers/firmware is meant for kernel code that
interfaces with system firmware, not for device drivers to load
their own firmware blobs from user space.
---
arch/arm/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/arm64/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/ia64/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/mips/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/parisc/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/riscv/Kconfig | 2 --
arch/x86/Kconfig | 2 --
drivers/Kconfig | 2 ++
8 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
With this change, I have the new entries below in my .config:
$diff-u.config.old.config---.config.old2021-10-0711:38:39.544000000+0200+++.config2021-10-0910:02:03.156000000+0200@@-1992,6+1992,25@@CONFIG_CONNECTOR=yCONFIG_PROC_EVENTS=y++#+#FirmwareDrivers+#++#+#ARMSystemControlandManagementInterfaceProtocol+#+#endofARMSystemControlandManagementInterfaceProtocol++#CONFIG_FIRMWARE_MEMMAPisnotset+#CONFIG_GOOGLE_FIRMWAREisnotset++#+#Tegrafirmwaredriver+#+#endofTegrafirmwaredriver+#endofFirmwareDrivers+# CONFIG_GNSS is not setCONFIG_MTD=m# CONFIG_MTD_TESTS is not set
No idea if the entries could be hidden for platforms not supporting them.
ARM System Control and Management Interface Protocol ----
[ ] Add firmware-provided memory map to sysfs
[ ] Google Firmware Drivers ----
Tegra firmware driver ----
Kind regards,
Paul
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 11:24 AM Paul Menzel [off-list ref] wrote:
[Cc: +linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org]
Am 28.09.21 um 09:50 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
quoted
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Compile-testing drivers that require access to a firmware layer
fails when that firmware symbol is unavailable. This happened
twice this week:
- My proposed to change to rework the QCOM_SCM firmware symbol
broke on ppc64 and others.
- The cs_dsp firmware patch added device specific firmware loader
into drivers/firmware, which broke on the same set of
architectures.
We should probably do the same thing for other subsystems as well,
but fix this one first as this is a dependency for other patches
getting merged.
With this change, I have the new entries below in my .config:
$diff-u.config.old.config---.config.old2021-10-0711:38:39.544000000+0200+++.config2021-10-0910:02:03.156000000+0200@@-1992,6+1992,25@@CONFIG_CONNECTOR=yCONFIG_PROC_EVENTS=y++#+#FirmwareDrivers+#++#+#ARMSystemControlandManagementInterfaceProtocol+#+#endofARMSystemControlandManagementInterfaceProtocol++#CONFIG_FIRMWARE_MEMMAPisnotset+#CONFIG_GOOGLE_FIRMWAREisnotset++#+#Tegrafirmwaredriver+#+#endofTegrafirmwaredriver+#endofFirmwareDrivers+# CONFIG_GNSS is not setCONFIG_MTD=m# CONFIG_MTD_TESTS is not set
No idea if the entries could be hidden for platforms not supporting them.
ARM System Control and Management Interface Protocol ----
[ ] Add firmware-provided memory map to sysfs
[ ] Google Firmware Drivers ----
Tegra firmware driver ----
GOOGLE_FIRMWARE should probably depend on something.
I highly doubt Google is running servers on e.g. h8300 and nds32.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 10:42 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 11:24 AM Paul Menzel [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Am 28.09.21 um 09:50 schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
quoted
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
+#+# ARM System Control and Management Interface Protocol+#+# end of ARM System Control and Management Interface Protocol++# CONFIG_FIRMWARE_MEMMAP is not set+# CONFIG_GOOGLE_FIRMWARE is not set++#+# Tegra firmware driver+#+# end of Tegra firmware driver+# end of Firmware Drivers+ # CONFIG_GNSS is not set CONFIG_MTD=m # CONFIG_MTD_TESTS is not set
GOOGLE_FIRMWARE should probably depend on something.
I highly doubt Google is running servers on e.g. h8300 and nds32.
GOOGLE_FIRMWARE is only the 'menuconfig' option that contains
the other options, but on architectures that have neither CONFIG_OF
nor CONFIG_ACPI, this is empty. Most architectures of course
do support or require CONFIG_OF, so it's unclear whether we should
show the options for coreboot. Since it's a software-only driver, I
would tend to keep showing it, given that coreboot can be ported
to every architecture. The DT binding [1] seems to be neither
Google nor Arm specific.
CONFIG_FIRMWARE_MEMMAP in turn can be used for
anything that has memory hotplug, and in theory additional
drivers that register with this interface.
I'd lean towards "leave as is" for both, to avoid having to
change the dependencies again whenever something else
can use these.
Arnd
[1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/firmware/coreboot.txt
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel