[PATCH 02/14] lmb: Use CONFIG_LMB_*_REGIONS only if they are defined

[Marek Vasut]

On 8/30/21 12:51 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:40:07AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 8/30/21 12:23 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:19:59AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> On 8/30/21 12:10 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 11:47:58PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/29/21 9:32 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 09:24:46PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/29/21 8:02 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 06:26:23PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/15/21 9:47 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 15, 2021 at 08:13:02PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The CONFIG_LMB_*_REGIONS are defined only if CONFIG_LMB is enabled,
>>>>>>>>>>>> protect access to those two config options to avoid undefined macro
>>>>>>>>>>>> errors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Simon Goldschmidt <simon.k.r.goldschmidt at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>        include/lmb.h | 4 ++--
>>>>>>>>>>>>        1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/include/lmb.h b/include/lmb.h
>>>>>>>>>>>> index 3c4afdf9f0..fa1474a360 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/include/lmb.h
>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/include/lmb.h
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -44,7 +44,7 @@ struct lmb_property {
>>>>>>>>>>>>        struct lmb_region {
>>>>>>>>>>>>        	unsigned long cnt;
>>>>>>>>>>>>        	unsigned long max;
>>>>>>>>>>>> -#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS)
>>>>>>>>>>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This doesn't make sense to me, still.  You cannot enable
>>>>>>>>> CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS without CONFIG_LMB as the former depends on
>>>>>>>>> the latter in Kconfig.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>        	struct lmb_property region[CONFIG_LMB_MAX_REGIONS];
>>>>>>>>>>>>        #else
>>>>>>>>>>>>        	struct lmb_property *region;
>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ struct lmb_region {
>>>>>>>>>>>>        struct lmb {
>>>>>>>>>>>>        	struct lmb_region memory;
>>>>>>>>>>>>        	struct lmb_region reserved;
>>>>>>>>>>>> -#if !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS)
>>>>>>>>>>>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB) && !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS)
>>>>>>>>>>>>        	struct lmb_property memory_regions[CONFIG_LMB_MEMORY_REGIONS];
>>>>>>>>>>>>        	struct lmb_property reserved_regions[CONFIG_LMB_RESERVED_REGIONS];
>>>>>>>>>>>>        #endif
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We shouldn't need this at all.  LMB and LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS are both in
>>>>>>>>>>> Kconfig and have the dependencies expressed that way.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> However, CONFIG_LMB_MEMORY_REGIONS and CONFIG_LMB_RESERVED_REGIONS may be
>>>>>>>>>> undefined if CONFIG_LMB and !CONFIG_LMB_USE_MAX_REGIONS . They are four
>>>>>>>>>> different symbols.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm still not seeing it, sorry.  Is there some case where we're trying
>>>>>>>>> to access a struct lmb without CONFIG_LMB enabled?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See build failure
>>>>>>>> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-sh/-/jobs/315331
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, progress.  Drop <lmb.h> from <image.h> since we already have a
>>>>>>> forward declaration of struct lmb?  But it's not failing without this
>>>>>>> series too, so what's changing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See 01/14 in this series.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, so drop 1/14 then.
>>>>
>>>> Why ? That patch is correct.
>>>
>>> It's not quite right, 1/14 and then 2/14 are papering over the fact that
>>> lmb.h, and it's including headers / files, need to be cleaned up so that
>>> we don't need to have redundant tests in the header.
>>
>> 1/14 disables LMB and CMD_BDI for tools build, we do not need those, so 1/14
>> is correct.
> 
> We don't need to build u-boot at all for tools-only, only the tools-only
> build target.  It's just annoying to exclude the tools-only_defconfig from
> "sandbox" in CI.

So, what exactly is the problem with that 01/14 ? Please elaborate, I 
believe the patch is correct.

>> What kind of cleanup of lmb.h do you have in mind ?
> 
> Remove it from include/image.h and fix any fall-out from that of files
> that got <lmb.h> indirectly when they needed it directly instead.

Uh ... that is likely for a separate series, and a big one.