On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:12:03 -0500 Solomon Peachy <pi...@shaftnet.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:33:09AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > > The corresponding .config is attached. Note that it is for a uClinux > > > 3.3.0-uc0 kernel. > > > > Lots of things have changed in the firmware code since 3.3.0, can you > > retest this on the 3.7-rc6 tree? Solomon, I can't duplicate the build failure with your .config on 3.7-rc5-next. > > Not easily; My employer is contracted to do some driver porting and > we're stuck with the kernel the client provided. However, the patch is > still relevant for upstream, because the underlying problem still > exists: > > * The #ifdef wraps code that pertains solely to built-in firmware, (ie > CONFIG_FIRMWARE_IN_KERNEL) and has an #else path for when it's disabled. > * There is no point in a CONFIG_FW_LOADER test inside firmware_class.c > when the file isn't even compiled unless CONFIG_FW_LOADER is defined. Enabling CONFIG_EXTRA_FIRMWARE still can make one firmware built in kernel even though CONFIG_FIRMWARE_IN_KERNEL isn't defined, so your patch will break this case. > > Perhaps the compile problem is solved in newer kernels (by always > generating an empty builtin firmware list?) but the #ifdef is still > incorrect. Looks the problem hasn't been reported before. Thanks, -- Ming Lei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
