From: Arnd Bergmann <email@example.com> To: Bjorn Andersson <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: Andy Gross <email@example.com>, Georgi Djakov <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Arnd Bergmann <email@example.com>, Sibi Sankar <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Evan Green <email@example.com>, Jonathan Marek <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Odelu Kukatla <email@example.com>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <firstname.lastname@example.org>, David Dai <email@example.com>, linux-arm-msm <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Linux PM list <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] interconnect: qcom: fix rpmh link failures Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2020 13:03:03 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAK8P3a2BSN7sUvRLgbpJTFws-=-Va30LNLvLEXbN46KewOy2dQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <X8rFzqURIVHeH4SL@builder.lan> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 12:27 AM Bjorn Andersson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Fri 04 Dec 10:50 CST 2020, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > Your patch looks correct to me, so: > Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <email@example.com> > > > But we're going to have to sprinkle a handful of these throughout the > tree and we're not a lot of people who "understand" what it does (and at > least I keep getting them wrong...) Right, I already ran into another one. > Perhaps it would be more reasonable to maintain this long term if we > drop the possibility of compile testing these drivers independently of > rpmh and command db? (I.e. drop the function stubs and rely on > RPMH/COMMAND_DB to enable building under COMPILE_TEST)? Agreed, I think that would be best. As long as RPMH and COMMAND_DB can individually be enabled for CONFIG_COMPILE_TEST, all the drivers will get enabled in an allmodconfig build, and we can just list the dependencies. I don't really like the headers too much that have an #ifdef CONFIG_SUBSYSTEM with an alternative set of inline functions, unless there is a reasonable expectations that drivers work fine if that subsystem is disabled. E.g. having the option to disable IPv6 makes sense despite the complexity that adds, but compile-testing a driver without a required subsystem that can also be enabled for compile-testing hurts more than it helps. > And just to make it clear, I think we should merge your patch to fix > v5.11; then consider to simplify this past that. Yes, sounds good. Arnd
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-05 18:39 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-12-04 16:50 Arnd Bergmann 2020-12-04 23:27 ` Bjorn Andersson 2020-12-05 12:03 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to='CAK8P3a2BSN7sUvRLgbpJTFws-=-Va30LNLvLEXbN46KewOy2dQ@mail.gmail.com' \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH] interconnect: qcom: fix rpmh link failures' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).