Re: [RESEND PATCH] remoteproc: qcom: fix QCOM_SMD dependencies

2017-03-20 Thread Bjorn Andersson
On Tue 14 Mar 04:01 PDT 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Jean Delvare wrote: [..] > > I don't think the COMPILE_TEST adds any value here. The whole set of > > drivers is architecture specific anyway so you won't gain much build > > test coverage. It may even prevent

Re: [RESEND PATCH] remoteproc: qcom: fix QCOM_SMD dependencies

2017-03-14 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Arnd, > > On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 17:36:25 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> qcom_smd_register_edge() is provided by either QCOM_SMD or RPMSG_QCOM_SMD, >> and if both of them are disabled, it does nothing. > > Actually the code itself looks wrong

Re: [RESEND PATCH] remoteproc: qcom: fix QCOM_SMD dependencies

2017-03-14 Thread Jean Delvare
Hi Arnd, On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 17:36:25 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > qcom_smd_register_edge() is provided by either QCOM_SMD or RPMSG_QCOM_SMD, > and if both of them are disabled, it does nothing. Actually the code itself looks wrong to me. There are two sets of stubs for qcom_smd_register_edge()

[RESEND PATCH] remoteproc: qcom: fix QCOM_SMD dependencies

2017-03-13 Thread Arnd Bergmann
qcom_smd_register_edge() is provided by either QCOM_SMD or RPMSG_QCOM_SMD, and if both of them are disabled, it does nothing. The check for the PIL drivers however only checks for QCOM_SMD, so it breaks with QCOM_SMD=n && RPMSG_QCOM_SMD=m: drivers/remoteproc/built-in.o: In function `smd_subdev_re