[PATCH 6/6] nx-842-platform: if NX842 platform drivers are not modules, don't try to load them

[Nishanth Aravamudan]

On 06.07.2015 [16:13:07 +0800], Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 03:42:26PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > Based off the CONFIG_SPU_FS_MODULE code, only attempt to load platform
> > modules if the nx-842 pseries/powernv drivers are built as modules.
> > 
> > Otherwise, if CONFIG_DEV_NX_COMPRESS=y,
> > CONFIG_DEV_NX_COMPRESS_PSERIES=y, CONFIG_DEV_NX_POWERNV=y, the following
> > message is emitted at boot:
> > 
> > nx_compress: no nx842 driver found.
> > 
> > even though the drivers successfully loads.
> > 
> > This is because in the =y case, the module_init() calls get converted to
> > initcalls and the nx842_init() runs before the platform driver
> > nx842_pseries_init() or nx842_powernv_init() functions, which are what
> > normally set the static platform driver.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Dan Streetman <ddstreet at us.ibm.com>
> > Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert at gondor.apana.org.au>
> > Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem at davemloft.net>
> > Cc: linux-crypto at vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: linuxppc-dev at lists.ozlabs.org
> 
> Ugh, I think this whole thing is redundant.  The whole point of
> the crypto API is to allow the coexistence of multiple underlying
> implementations.

Sure, that makes sense -- sorry, I was picking this up while Dan was on
vacation. Will provide a better v2.

> Please get rid of nx-842-platform.c completely and move the crypto
> registration into the individual platform drivers.  That is, powernv
> and pseries should each register their own crypto driver.  They can of
> course share a common set of crypto code which can live in its own
> module.  There should be no need for mucking with module reference
> counts at all.

Will do, thanks!

-Nish