Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc:     Johannes Thumshirn <morbidrsa@gmail.com>,
        linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, mchehab@kernel.org,
        james.morse@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC, mpc85xx: Prevent building as a module
In-Reply-To: <20190509180220.GH17053@zn.tnic>
References: <20190502141941.12927-1-mpe@ellerman.id.au> <20190506065045.GA3901@x250> <20190508101238.GB19015@zn.tnic> <87o94bvfxm.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> <20190509145534.GD17053@zn.tnic> <20190509180220.GH17053@zn.tnic>
Date:   Fri, 10 May 2019 20:50:52 +1000
Message-ID: <87bm0avb03.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> writes:

> On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 04:55:34PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 12:52:05AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> > Thanks. It would be nice if you could send it as a fix for 5.2, it's the
>> > last thing blocking one of my allmodconfig builds. But if you don't
>> > think it qualifies as a fix that's fine too, it can wait.
>> 
>> Sure, no problem. Will do a pull request later.
>
> Hmm, so looking at this more, I was able to produce this config with my
> ancient cross-compiler:
>
> CONFIG_EDAC_SUPPORT=y
> CONFIG_EDAC=m
> CONFIG_EDAC_LEGACY_SYSFS=y
> CONFIG_EDAC_MPC85XX=y

Oh yeah good point.

> Now, mpc85xx_edac is built-in and edac_core.ko is a module
> (CONFIG_EDAC=m) and that should not work - i.e., builtin code calling
> module functions. But my cross-compiler is happily building this without
> complaint. Or maybe I'm missing something.

That's weird.

> In any case, I *think* the proper fix should be to do:
>
> config EDAC_MPC85XX
>         bool "Freescale MPC83xx / MPC85xx"
>         depends on FSL_SOC && EDAC=y
>
> so that you can't even produce the above invalid .config snippet.
>
> Hmmm?

Yeah that looks better to me. I didn't think about the case where EDAC
core is modular.

Do you want me to send a new patch?

cheers