Re: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

From	Alexander Stein <alexanders83@web.de>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)
Date	2016-06-29 08:10 +0200
Message-ID	<rPgRb-w4-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<rOyn7-53m-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rOVjI-3E5-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <rOWIN-4s2-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Tuesday 28 June 2016, 10:37:52 wrote Arnd Bergmann:
> > > I think the commit should just be reverted, it clearly breaks
> > > stuff, and whatever needs it can be fixed in a better way.
> > 
> > Why not depend PINCTRL_IPROC_GPIO on CONFIG_OF as Randy stated 
> > pinconf_generic_dt_node_to_map_pin and friends are only present if 
CONFIG_OF 
> > is enabled. Depending on OF_GPIO only is enough under the assumption a) 
you 
> > made below.
> > Also what about providing dummy implementation for those missing function 
in 
> > case CONFIG_OF is disabled, my preference as more code can be compile 
tested.
> >
> > > Specifically, we have three ways that the OF_GPIO symbol
> > > is used:
> > > 
> > > a) it is implicitly enabled when both GPIOLIB and OF are turned on
> > 
> > or if COMPILE_TEST is enabled
> > 
> > I think a problem in this and possibly other cases is that COMPILE_TEST 
> > loosens the Kconfig dependencies to some degree. How to proceed? Allow 
compile 
> > testing drivers only if some optional settings are enabled?
> 
> I think we can start by reverting your patch: for compile-testing we can
> always enable CONFIG_OF these days, which will also turn on OF_GPIO.

My intention was to compile test (device tree) drivers also without CONFIG_OF 
which is disabled by defconfig default on arch/x86/configs/*

> Compile-testing drivers that need OF_GPIO while OF is disabled makes
> no sense to me, it's not a configuration that anybody can ever use
> and it adds no build coverage.

That seems sensible. If we can agree that anyone who wants to compile test 
drivers has to enable CONFIG_OF even it is not needed for the current 
configuration.

Best regards,
Alexander

Thread

linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2016-06-27 08:40 +0200
  Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF) Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> - 2016-06-27 20:20 +0200
    Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF) Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-06-27 23:40 +0200
      Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF) Alexander Stein <alexanders83@web.de> - 2016-06-28 09:10 +0200
        Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF) Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> - 2016-06-28 10:30 +0200
        Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF) Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-06-28 10:40 +0200
          Re: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF) Alexander Stein <alexanders83@web.de> - 2016-06-29 08:10 +0200
    Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF) Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> - 2016-07-04 11:50 +0200
      Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF) Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> - 2016-07-04 18:20 +0200
        Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF) Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> - 2016-07-05 08:50 +0200

csiph-web