On 12/07/2015 02:40 PM, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 07 Dec 2015, Archit Taneja <architt at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> On 12/07/2015 02:15 PM, Jani Nikula wrote: >>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015, Archit Taneja <architt at codeaurora.org> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 11/30/2015 06:15 PM, kbuild test robot wrote: >>>>> Hi Archit, >>>>> >>>>> [auto build test ERROR on: v4.4-rc3] >>>>> [also build test ERROR on: next-20151127] >>>>> >>>>> url: >>>>> https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Archit-Taneja/drm-dsi-DSI-for-devices-with-different-control-bus/20151130-200725 >>>>> config: x86_64-allyesdebian (attached as .config) >>>>> reproduce: >>>>> # save the attached .config to linux build tree >>>>> make ARCH=x86_64 >>>>> >>>>> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): >>>>> >>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c: In function >>>>> 'of_mipi_dsi_device_add': >>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c:168:6: error: implicit declaration of >>>>>>> function 'of_modalias_node' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >>>>> if (of_modalias_node(node, info.type, sizeof(info.type)) < 0) { >>>> >>>> Any suggestions on how to fix this? Is it ok to make DRM_MIPI_DSI >>>> depend on CONFIG_OF? >>> >>> Please don't. >> >> Just curious, how did x86 use DSI if the only way to create DSI devices >> until now was via DT? > > Oh, you want the gory details... we use the DSI code as a library for > abstraction and helpers, without actually creating or registering the > devices.
Okay, got it. I'll go with the IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) approach. Humble request: Next time if I share something that doesn't make sense, please reply with something more than a "Please don't". That just sounds condescending and doesn't really help me with my cause either. Thanks, Archit > > BR, > Jani. > > >> >> Archit >> >>> >>> BR, >>> Jani. >>> > -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation