Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m

2016-01-05 Thread David E. Box 
Hi

Sorry I missed this discussion. I believe the following code in
i2c_dw_eval_lock_support() should make it so that it doesn't matter how
IOSF_MBI is built:

   if (!iosf_mbi_available())
   return -EPROBE_DEFER;

I added this to address i2c_designware probing before iosf_mbi. It worked but
I do not recall if IOSF_MBI=m was the problem scenario. If so you can just
change it to:

   depends in I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI

Give me a few days to confirm on my Baytrail device. 

David

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 01:48:44PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> I believe i2c-designware-baytrail.c doesn't have strict dependency that
> Intel SoC IOSF Sideband support must be always built-in in order to be
> able to compile support for Intel Baytrail I2C bus sharing HW semaphore.
> 
> Redefine build dependencies so that CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y is required only
> when CONFIG_I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM is built-in.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula 
> ---
> Hi David. Can you ack/nak this patch as I'm not fully familiar with this
> HW semaphore can there be problems when IOSF_MBI is built as a module.
> At least I'm getting similar sensible looking "punit semaphore
> acquired/held for x ms" debug messages when I modprobe/rmmod
> i2c_designware_platform independently is the CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y or =m.
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> index 69c46fe13777..76f4d024def0 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> @@ -490,7 +490,9 @@ config I2C_DESIGNWARE_PCI
>  
>  config I2C_DESIGNWARE_BAYTRAIL
>   bool "Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support"
> - depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI=y && ACPI
> + depends on ACPI
> + depends on (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m && IOSF_MBI) || \
> +(I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && IOSF_MBI=y)
>   help
> This driver enables managed host access to the PMIC I2C bus on select
> Intel BayTrail platforms using the X-Powers AXP288 PMIC. It allows
> -- 
> 2.6.2
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m

2016-01-04 Thread Wolfram Sang 
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:56:27PM +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> On 12/10/2015 02:59 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 13:48 +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> >>I believe i2c-designware-baytrail.c doesn't have strict dependency
> >>that
> >>Intel SoC IOSF Sideband support must be always built-in in order to
> >>be
> >>able to compile support for Intel Baytrail I2C bus sharing HW
> >>semaphore.
> >>
> >>Redefine build dependencies so that CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y is required
> >>only
> >>when CONFIG_I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM is built-in.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula 
> >>---
> >>Hi David. Can you ack/nak this patch as I'm not fully familiar with
> >>this
> >>HW semaphore can there be problems when IOSF_MBI is built as a
> >>module.
> >
> >
> >>At least I'm getting similar sensible looking "punit semaphore
> >>acquired/held for x ms" debug messages when I modprobe/rmmod
> >>i2c_designware_platform independently is the CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y or =m.
> >>---
> >>  drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 4 +++-
> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> >>index 69c46fe13777..76f4d024def0 100644
> >>--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> >>+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> >>@@ -490,7 +490,9 @@ config I2C_DESIGNWARE_PCI
> >>
> >>  config I2C_DESIGNWARE_BAYTRAIL
> >>bool "Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support"
> >>-   depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI=y && ACPI
> >>+   depends on ACPI
> >>+   depends on (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m && IOSF_MBI) || \
> >>+  (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && IOSF_MBI=y)
> >
> >Would it be more readable in the following way
> >
> >depends on ACPI
> >depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM
> >depends on IOSF_MBI if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m
> >depends on IOSF_MBI=y if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y
> >
> For my eyes it looks a bit more complex but I think it's matter of taste.
> However, the syntax you are proposing is not supported for "depends on" like
> it is for "select" statements.

Any news? David?



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m

2015-12-10 Thread Jarkko Nikula 
I believe i2c-designware-baytrail.c doesn't have strict dependency that
Intel SoC IOSF Sideband support must be always built-in in order to be
able to compile support for Intel Baytrail I2C bus sharing HW semaphore.

Redefine build dependencies so that CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y is required only
when CONFIG_I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM is built-in.

Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula 
---
Hi David. Can you ack/nak this patch as I'm not fully familiar with this
HW semaphore can there be problems when IOSF_MBI is built as a module.
At least I'm getting similar sensible looking "punit semaphore
acquired/held for x ms" debug messages when I modprobe/rmmod
i2c_designware_platform independently is the CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y or =m.
---
 drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
index 69c46fe13777..76f4d024def0 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
@@ -490,7 +490,9 @@ config I2C_DESIGNWARE_PCI
 
 config I2C_DESIGNWARE_BAYTRAIL
bool "Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support"
-   depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI=y && ACPI
+   depends on ACPI
+   depends on (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m && IOSF_MBI) || \
+  (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && IOSF_MBI=y)
help
  This driver enables managed host access to the PMIC I2C bus on select
  Intel BayTrail platforms using the X-Powers AXP288 PMIC. It allows
-- 
2.6.2

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m

2015-12-10 Thread Andy Shevchenko 
On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 13:48 +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:
> I believe i2c-designware-baytrail.c doesn't have strict dependency
> that
> Intel SoC IOSF Sideband support must be always built-in in order to
> be
> able to compile support for Intel Baytrail I2C bus sharing HW
> semaphore.
> 
> Redefine build dependencies so that CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y is required
> only
> when CONFIG_I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM is built-in.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula 
> ---
> Hi David. Can you ack/nak this patch as I'm not fully familiar with
> this
> HW semaphore can there be problems when IOSF_MBI is built as a
> module.


> At least I'm getting similar sensible looking "punit semaphore
> acquired/held for x ms" debug messages when I modprobe/rmmod
> i2c_designware_platform independently is the CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y or =m.
> ---
>  drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> index 69c46fe13777..76f4d024def0 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
> @@ -490,7 +490,9 @@ config I2C_DESIGNWARE_PCI
>  
>  config I2C_DESIGNWARE_BAYTRAIL
>   bool "Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support"
> - depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI=y && ACPI
> + depends on ACPI
> + depends on (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m && IOSF_MBI) || \
> +    (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && IOSF_MBI=y)

Would it be more readable in the following way

depends on ACPI
depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM
depends on IOSF_MBI if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m
depends on IOSF_MBI=y if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y

>   help
>     This driver enables managed host access to the PMIC I2C
> bus on select
>     Intel BayTrail platforms using the X-Powers AXP288 PMIC.
> It allows

-- 
Andy Shevchenko 
Intel Finland Oy

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c: designware: Allow build Baytrail semaphore support when IOSF_MBI=m

2015-12-10 Thread Jarkko Nikula 

On 12/10/2015 02:59 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Thu, 2015-12-10 at 13:48 +0200, Jarkko Nikula wrote:

I believe i2c-designware-baytrail.c doesn't have strict dependency
that
Intel SoC IOSF Sideband support must be always built-in in order to
be
able to compile support for Intel Baytrail I2C bus sharing HW
semaphore.

Redefine build dependencies so that CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y is required
only
when CONFIG_I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM is built-in.

Signed-off-by: Jarkko Nikula 
---
Hi David. Can you ack/nak this patch as I'm not fully familiar with
this
HW semaphore can there be problems when IOSF_MBI is built as a
module.




At least I'm getting similar sensible looking "punit semaphore
acquired/held for x ms" debug messages when I modprobe/rmmod
i2c_designware_platform independently is the CONFIG_IOSF_MBI=y or =m.
---
  drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 4 +++-
  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
index 69c46fe13777..76f4d024def0 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig
@@ -490,7 +490,9 @@ config I2C_DESIGNWARE_PCI

  config I2C_DESIGNWARE_BAYTRAIL
bool "Intel Baytrail I2C semaphore support"
-   depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM && IOSF_MBI=y && ACPI
+   depends on ACPI
+   depends on (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m && IOSF_MBI) || \
+  (I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y && IOSF_MBI=y)


Would it be more readable in the following way

depends on ACPI
depends on I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM
depends on IOSF_MBI if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=m
depends on IOSF_MBI=y if I2C_DESIGNWARE_PLATFORM=y

For my eyes it looks a bit more complex but I think it's matter of 
taste. However, the syntax you are proposing is not supported for 
"depends on" like it is for "select" statements.


--
Jarkko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html