Re: [origin tree build failure] [PATCH] Revert "USB: musb: make HAVE_CLK support optional"

[Mike Frysinger]

On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:00, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:29, Greg KH wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:05:57AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 03:42, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> As usual, please test this for regressions, both new and old.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Â Â Â USB: musb: make HAVE_CLK support optional
>> >> >
>> >> > This USB/Blackfin commit broke the x86 build with these config options:
>> >> >
>> >> > ÂCONFIG_USB_MUSB_HDRC=y
>> >> > ÂCONFIG_USB_MUSB_HOST=y
>> >> > Â# CONFIG_USB_MUSB_PERIPHERAL is not set
>> >> > Â# CONFIG_USB_MUSB_OTG is not set
>> >> > Â# CONFIG_USB_GADGET_MUSB_HDRC is not set
>> >> > ÂCONFIG_USB_MUSB_HDRC_HCD=y
>> >> > ÂCONFIG_MUSB_PIO_ONLY=y
>> >> > ÂCONFIG_USB_MUSB_DEBUG=y
>> >> >
>> >> > Because a side-effect of the patch was that it enabled the driver on x86
>> >> > too which doesnt have HAVE_CLK. So this formerly embedded-only driver
>> >> > got exposed on the more widely tested x86 platform.
>> >>
>> >> this is dumb. Âyou're addressing unrealistic scenarios (randconfig) by
>> >> reverting code for realistic scenarios. Âhow about updating the
>> >> already present arch depend string instead.
>> >
>> > We want 'randconfig' to work, so this is not unrealistic. ÂHave you not
>> > seen Randy Dunlap's zillion patches to get this to all work properly
>> > over the past months?
>>
>> i'm not suggesting it not be fixed, i'm suggested it be *fixed*
>> instead of blindly reverted.
>
> Sure, i'd agree with that if we were in the merge window. The thing is,
> -rc4 is not the time to do patches that need fixes. It is to fix
> regressions. I dont think this commit applies as a regression fix, does
> it? It _introduces_ a regression.
>
> So a revert is a proper first-level response to this and i fail to
> understand your surprise about that. A fix is nice too, of course, if
> it's simple enough.

if the change were non-trivial and/or the person making the change
were unresponsive, then a revert would certainly make sense this late
in the game.  but neither really apply here.
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/