Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Mar 2018 01:33:17 +0200 | From | Baruch Siach <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] gpio: raspberrypi-ext: fix firmware dependency |
| |
Hi Linus,
On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 10:28:52AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > When the firmware driver is a loadable module, the gpio driver cannot be > > built-in: > > > > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o: In function `rpi_exp_gpio_set': > > gpio-raspberrypi-exp.c:(.text+0xb4): undefined reference to `rpi_firmware_property' > > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o: In function `rpi_exp_gpio_get': > > gpio-raspberrypi-exp.c:(.text+0x1ec): undefined reference to `rpi_firmware_property' > > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o: In function `rpi_exp_gpio_get_direction': > > gpio-raspberrypi-exp.c:(.text+0x360): undefined reference to `rpi_firmware_property' > > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o: In function `rpi_exp_gpio_get_polarity': > > gpio-raspberrypi-exp.c:(.text+0x4d4): undefined reference to `rpi_firmware_property' > > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o: In function `rpi_exp_gpio_dir_out': > > gpio-raspberrypi-exp.c:(.text+0x670): undefined reference to `rpi_firmware_property' > > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o:gpio-raspberrypi-exp.c:(.text+0x7fc): more undefined references to `rpi_firmware_property' follow > > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o: In function `rpi_exp_gpio_dir_in': > > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o: In function `rpi_exp_gpio_probe': > > gpio-raspberrypi-exp.c:(.text+0x93c): undefined reference to `rpi_firmware_get' > > > > We already have a Kconfig dependency for it, but when compile-testing, it > > is disregarded. > > > > This changes the dependency so that compile-testing is only done when the > > firmware driver is completely disabled. > > > > Fixes: a98d90e7d588 ("gpio: raspberrypi-exp: Driver for RPi3 GPIO expander via mailbox service") > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > Baruch, are you waiting for a fixed fix or should I apply this? > > It's a bit unclear from the mail chain what action I should take...
This patch fixes the issue. I think that an inline comment should be added at least, because otherwise the dependency in incomprehensible. I also prefer the
depends on m || DEPENDENCY != m
style to express this kind of dependencies.
What do you think?
baruch
-- http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{= - baruch@tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -
| |