Patchwork powerpc/cell: Only build Axon MSI driver for IBM Cell Blades

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Michael Ellerman
Date March 5, 2009, 4:41 a.m.
Message ID <e9c405aaec255c2a3d34209fc35ae093fcae8efc.1236228043.git.michael@ellerman.id.au>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/24080/
State Superseded, archived
Delegated to: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Headers show

Comments

Michael Ellerman - March 5, 2009, 4:41 a.m.
The hardware is only present on those machines, and the driver
depends on infrastructure which is selected by the Kconfig for
cell blades.

Reported-by: Mikey "Randconfig Monkey" Neuling
Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>
---
 arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Makefile |    2 ++
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Olof Johansson - March 5, 2009, 7:13 a.m.
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 03:41:41PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> The hardware is only present on those machines, and the driver
> depends on infrastructure which is selected by the Kconfig for
> cell blades.

Wouldn't it make more sense to make a separate (AXON_MSI) config option
depend on PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE?


-Olof

> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Makefile
> @@ -28,7 +28,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SPU_BASE)			+= spu_callbacks.o spu_base.o \
>  					   $(spu-manage-y) \
>  					   spufs/
>  
> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE),y)
>  obj-$(CONFIG_PCI_MSI)			+= axon_msi.o
> +endif
>  
>  # qpace setup
>  obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_CELL_QPACE)		+= qpace_setup.o
Michael Ellerman - March 5, 2009, 2:07 p.m.
On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 01:13 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 03:41:41PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > The hardware is only present on those machines, and the driver
> > depends on infrastructure which is selected by the Kconfig for
> > cell blades.
> 
> Wouldn't it make more sense to make a separate (AXON_MSI) config option
> depend on PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE?

Maybe, it would make the makefile cleaner, at the expense of a bit more
Kconfig. I'm not sure what people prefer, I guess I'm neutral and you're
voting for the latter, so I'll respin it that way :)

cheers
Olof Johansson - March 5, 2009, 8:08 p.m.
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 01:07:05AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-03-05 at 01:13 -0600, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 03:41:41PM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > The hardware is only present on those machines, and the driver
> > > depends on infrastructure which is selected by the Kconfig for
> > > cell blades.
> > 
> > Wouldn't it make more sense to make a separate (AXON_MSI) config option
> > depend on PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE?
> 
> Maybe, it would make the makefile cleaner, at the expense of a bit more
> Kconfig. I'm not sure what people prefer, I guess I'm neutral and you're
> voting for the latter, so I'll respin it that way :)

Yeah, I'm not really that picky either, it just set off a red flag
w.r.t. setting a bad precedence on ifdef:ing in the makefile instead of
Kconfig engineering. Slippery slope and all that.


-Olof

Patch

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Makefile b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Makefile
index 43eccb2..9330cf8 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Makefile
+++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/cell/Makefile
@@ -28,7 +28,9 @@  obj-$(CONFIG_SPU_BASE)			+= spu_callbacks.o spu_base.o \
 					   $(spu-manage-y) \
 					   spufs/
 
+ifeq ($(CONFIG_PPC_IBM_CELL_BLADE),y)
 obj-$(CONFIG_PCI_MSI)			+= axon_msi.o
+endif
 
 # qpace setup
 obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_CELL_QPACE)		+= qpace_setup.o