Re: [PATCH] gpio: raspberrypi-ext: fix firmware dependency

[Baruch Siach]

Hi Linus,

On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 10:28:52AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> > When the firmware driver is a loadable module, the gpio driver cannot be
> > built-in:
> >
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o: In function `rpi_exp_gpio_set':
> > gpio-raspberrypi-exp.c:(.text+0xb4): undefined reference to `rpi_firmware_property'
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o: In function `rpi_exp_gpio_get':
> > gpio-raspberrypi-exp.c:(.text+0x1ec): undefined reference to `rpi_firmware_property'
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o: In function `rpi_exp_gpio_get_direction':
> > gpio-raspberrypi-exp.c:(.text+0x360): undefined reference to `rpi_firmware_property'
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o: In function `rpi_exp_gpio_get_polarity':
> > gpio-raspberrypi-exp.c:(.text+0x4d4): undefined reference to `rpi_firmware_property'
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o: In function `rpi_exp_gpio_dir_out':
> > gpio-raspberrypi-exp.c:(.text+0x670): undefined reference to `rpi_firmware_property'
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o:gpio-raspberrypi-exp.c:(.text+0x7fc): more undefined references to `rpi_firmware_property' follow
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o: In function `rpi_exp_gpio_dir_in':
> > drivers/gpio/gpio-raspberrypi-exp.o: In function `rpi_exp_gpio_probe':
> > gpio-raspberrypi-exp.c:(.text+0x93c): undefined reference to `rpi_firmware_get'
> >
> > We already have a Kconfig dependency for it, but when compile-testing, it
> > is disregarded.
> >
> > This changes the dependency so that compile-testing is only done when the
> > firmware driver is completely disabled.
> >
> > Fixes: a98d90e7d588 ("gpio: raspberrypi-exp: Driver for RPi3 GPIO expander via mailbox service")
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> Baruch, are you waiting for a fixed fix or should I apply this?
> 
> It's a bit unclear from the mail chain what action I should take...

This patch fixes the issue. I think that an inline comment should be added at 
least, because otherwise the dependency in incomprehensible. I also prefer the

  depends on m || DEPENDENCY != m 

style to express this kind of dependencies.

What do you think?

baruch

-- 
     http://baruch.siach.name/blog/                  ~. .~   Tk Open Systems
=}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
   - baruch@xxxxxxxxxx - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -