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
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
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()
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
4 matches
Mail list logo