[PATCH] bsps/zynqmp: Allow any or all CGEMs to be enabled

[Chris Johns]

On 30/6/21 2:19 am, Kinsey Moore wrote:
> On 6/29/2021 11:10, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 6:34 AM Kinsey Moore <kinsey.moore at oarcorp.com> wrote:
>>> I suppose this could have been configured in libbsd (possibly
>>> config.inc) instead if that's what you're getting at. The overall goal
>>> is to be able to run the tests that use the network on any one of the
>>> board variants that this BSP supports. My takeaway from the earlier
>>> conversation on the list is that this was the preferred method of
>>> switching the ethernet interface for those tests.
>>>
>> I acked this patch, and then I also dug into the cgem code. It seems
>> we should leave the decision of which GEM to use to the application.
>> This patch and way of doing that accomplishes the configuration by the
>> application as a BSP option. However, there's no code in the BSP that
>> actually gets controlled by the option. So, I think we should probably
>> find a better way to allow the application to select which GEM it
>> uses, and to provide the glue in the BSP to allow all the possible
>> GEMs to be available.
> 
> This patch was primarily targeted at the tests themselves. The application can
> always provide its own nexus definitions instead of using the ones baked into
> libbsd for testing (this was brought up in the initial thread where I asked
> about how this was typically done). Unfortunately, this is hard to do with the
> tests because the tests are the application and can't be changed for those
> overrides/alternatives.

The tests should be handled by config.inc as you said. If that support is not
good enough then we should address that.

The issue adding this type of support in BSPs is a possible dependence and that
means we can never change it. If we add things for down stream packages be it
libbsd or anything else we can never change it because we have to assume there
will always be a version of something somewhere that depends on it, eg bisect.

I suggest this be removed.

I know there are other BSP that have similar defines and we should address as
time permits.

Chris