On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Baruch Siach <bar...@tkos.co.il> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 10:28:52AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@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 <a...@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?
I am hopelessly ignorant about Kconfig and the whole thing just
bites me and scares me all the time, like it's an angry dog.
Just patch on top of Arnds fix if you prefer some other solution,
I bet you know this better than me.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
