On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Now that we have a kconfig checker just use that instead of relying
> on testing a sysfs directory being present, since our requirements
> are spelled out.
I don't see the reason to depend on config.gz, but it's a
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 6:46 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> Now that we have a kconfig checker just use that instead of relying
> on testing a sysfs directory being present, since our requirements
> are spelled out.
I don't see the reason to depend on config.gz, but it's a reasonable
requirement
Now that we have a kconfig checker just use that instead of relying
on testing a sysfs directory being present, since our requirements
are spelled out.
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez
---
tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_fallback.sh | 5 +
1 file changed, 1
Now that we have a kconfig checker just use that instead of relying
on testing a sysfs directory being present, since our requirements
are spelled out.
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez
---
tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_fallback.sh | 5 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
Now that we have a kconfig checker just use that instead of relying
on testing a sysfs directory being present, since our requirements
are spelled out.
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez
---
tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_fallback.sh | 5 +
1 file changed, 1
Now that we have a kconfig checker just use that instead of relying
on testing a sysfs directory being present, since our requirements
are spelled out.
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez
---
tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_fallback.sh | 5 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
6 matches
Mail list logo