[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK=WgbaNHBVeF_A0jyNpRvnsO_BbkJGxKzyroC6pO1x+OELe0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 13:52:49 +0200
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
To: Sjur BRENDELAND <sjur.brandeland@...ricsson.com>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
"Linus Walleij (linus.walleij@...aro.org)" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [remoteproc:for-next 6/9] remoteproc_virtio.c:(.text+0x238e7e):
undefined reference to `vring_transport_features'
Hi Sjur,
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Sjur BRENDELAND
<sjur.brandeland@...ricsson.com> wrote:
> Sorry for not responding sooner, but I thought this issue was solved with
> your patch "remoteproc: fix (again) the virtio-related build breakage"
> (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/6/85).
>
> I'm not sure I understand why you would want to add a dependency to ARM.
> But if you're uncomfortable by having STE_MODEM_RPROC directly selectable,
> perhaps we could let it be selected by arch specific Kconfig files, e.g. mach-ux500?
I would just like the Kconfig dependencies to reflect the "real world":
E.g., if there's no chance the STE modem is going to be used on x86,
then let's not ask x86 folks about it.
Does limiting the STE modem to certain platform/architectures make
sense ? (if not, that's ok)
Thanks,
Ohad.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists