Re: [PATCH v3] wireless: carl9170: fix LEDS build errors & warnings

From: Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@gmail.com>
To: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>, Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] wireless: carl9170: fix LEDS build errors & warnings
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 20:10:13 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1158a5e5-6b3e-3cab-885d-c72e45d26a0c@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5e5a50e0-7e42-9fd3-f927-d3b695a21912@infradead.org>

On 03/06/2021 17:20, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 6/3/21 2:46 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/30/21 2:31 AM, Christian Lamparter wrote:
>>>> On 30/05/2021 05:11, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>>> kernel test robot reports over 200 build errors and warnings
>>>>> that are due to this Kconfig problem when CARL9170=m,
>>>>> MAC80211=y, and LEDS_CLASS=m.
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for MAC80211_LEDS
>>>>>     Depends on [n]: NET [=y] && WIRELESS [=y] && MAC80211 [=y] &&
>>>>> (LEDS_CLASS [=m]=y || LEDS_CLASS [=m]=MAC80211 [=y])
>>>>>     Selected by [m]:
>>>>>     - CARL9170_LEDS [=y] && NETDEVICES [=y] && WLAN [=y] &&
>>>>> WLAN_VENDOR_ATH [=y] && CARL9170 [=m]
>>>>>
>>>>> CARL9170_LEDS selects MAC80211_LEDS even though its kconfig
>>>>> dependencies are not met. This happens because 'select' does not follow
>>>>> any Kconfig dependency chains.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fix this by making CARL9170_LEDS depend on MAC80211_LEDS, where
>>>>> the latter supplies any needed dependencies on LEDS_CLASS.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, this is not what I was expecting... I though you would just
>>>> add a "depends on / imply MAC80211_LEDS" on your v2. (this was
>>>> based on the assumption of what mac80211,  ath9k/_htc and mt76
>>>> solutions of the same problem looked like).
>>>
>>> Do you want the user choice/prompt removed, like MT76 is?
>>>
>>>> But since (I assuming here) this patch passed the build-bots
>>>> testing with flying colors in the different config permutations.
>>>
>>> It hasn't passed any build-bots testing that I know of.
>>> I did 8 combinations of kconfigs (well, 2 of them were invalid),
>>> but they all passed my own build testing.
>>
>> So is this ok to take now? Or will there be v4?
> 
> It's all good AFAIK unless Christian wants something changed.
> 
> Christian?
> 
I think it's good. It's probably just that Kalle is busy.
 From what I know, if something was wrong there the build-bots
would have already sent a letter.

Cheers,
Christian