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

[Marek Vasut]

On 8/30/21 1:11 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 01:00:02AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> You disable LMB in a target that's only building "all" in CI because
> wasn't ever worth adding ",sandbox" to the all other arches job until
> perhaps now.
> 
> Disabling LMB in tools-only_defconfig then exposes that <lmb.h> can only
> be included safely when CONFIG_LMB is set.
> 
> Adding / extending an #if test in code for something that's already
> checked for in Kconfig is bad.  We spent so much time already removing
> and shrinking #if tests in the code.

So, the patch is correct, the headers need further clean up.

>>>> 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.
> 
> Honestly, checking again, I'm not sure LMB=n is valid, ever.

Why wouldn't it be ? For tools, LMB=n is perfectly valid.

> That's how
> we keep our running U-Boot from being trivially overwritten and a huge
> number of security issues from being re-opened.

Tools are not running U-Boot.

> At this point, I think you should rework things to stop making
> CONFIG_LMB be optional, it should be a def_bool y.

I disagree, see above.