Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 06 Oct 2012 10:21:32 -0400 (EDT) | Subject | Re: [net:master 1/9] pch_gbe_main.c:(.text+0x510370): undefined reference to `pch_ch_control_write' | From | David Miller <> |
| |
From: Haicheng Li <haicheng.li@linux.intel.com> Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 22:07:23 +0800
> On 10/06/2012 09:22 PM, David Miller wrote: >> From: Haicheng Li<haicheng.li@linux.intel.com> >> Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:07:08 +0800 >> >>> The failure is due to the CONFIG_PPS is not set there, consequently >>> CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK can not be set as =y anyway. >>> >>> So David's patch of "da1586461e53a4dd045738cce309ab488970f0ef [1/9] >>> pch_gbe: Fix PTP dependencies" is buggy. Furthermore, I think using >>> "selects" to resolve such dependency issue is not good idea as it >>> won't visit the dependencies. >>> >>> David, I would still suggest to take my original patch: >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/28/70 >>> >>> + depends on PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH&& (PCH_GBE=m || PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH=y) >>> >>> or simply like: >> >> This is all very rediculous if you ask me. >> >> Why should the user have to know a detail like the underlying >> PTP chip type just to enable PTP on his networking card? >> >> Because that is what you are making him do with your change. >> >> Select removed the necessity of the user having to know these >> things. > However it possibly breaks the build... > > IMHO, the reason why the dependency of PCH_PTP becomes so tricky is > that the code of these two modules call the functions of each other > (bad code structure?). To fix it neatly, either we restructure the > code or just simply make it: > + depends on PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH=y > > For PCH_GBE=m case, it does be able to pass the build test, but I'm > afraid it won't be smoothly workable via "insmod" due to the > codependency of these two when PCH_PTP is enabled.
Then why does it work for IXGBE and others who use select?
| |