So after further offline conversations, Yes, Cyril, you are right, I don't need the ifdef in my code. I just need the symbol. I will amend my patches appropriately.
On Tue, 2015-08-11 at 21:22 +1000, Daniel Axtens wrote: > > So I'm not super all over the putting all sorts of code inside > > CONFIG_CXL_EEH, > > I understand that there is another driver being merged and they'll use > > CONFIG_CXL_EEH so that both this driver and the other driver can go in the > > same > > merge window but does this mean you need to put it around everything here? > > > > I may have misunderstood what you've told me but if the other driver > > depends on > > work done in this one (and not the other way around), if they depend on > > CONFIG_CXL_EEH which you create in the last patch, then they cannot be built > > until this series exists, so they can't have issues. > > > > The one catch is that this series as is waits untill the last patch to > > actually > > create the symbol, and therefore compile everything so lets be sure you > > don't > > break bisecting. You might need to rethink the order of things in 8/10 and > > 9/10, > > I can't see anything obvious if it helps... > > > > Yeah, so you're right. I've taken the guards off everything except the > new API function. I still want to leave the patch that adds the symbol > at the end: that way you don't get the function unless it is actually > going to make a difference in the EEH process. > > The other driver (cxlflash) just guards the API function, inserting a > stub if it's not defined. So this setup will make our code cleaner and > will still let their code merge cleanly. > > Thanks again for the review. > -- Regards, Daniel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev