[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121121140109.GA7549@shaftnet.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:01:10 -0500
From: Solomon Peachy <pizza@...ftnet.org>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [firmware_class] Fix compile with no builtin firmware
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 09:35:28AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Solomon, I can't duplicate the build failure with your .config on 3.7-rc5-next.
Okay, so it's since been fixed.
> > * The #ifdef wraps code that pertains solely to built-in firmware, (ie
> > CONFIG_FIRMWARE_IN_KERNEL) and has an #else path for when it's disabled.
> > * There is no point in a CONFIG_FW_LOADER test inside firmware_class.c
> > when the file isn't even compiled unless CONFIG_FW_LOADER is defined.
>
> Enabling CONFIG_EXTRA_FIRMWARE still can make one firmware built in kernel
> even though CONFIG_FIRMWARE_IN_KERNEL isn't defined, so your patch will break
> this case.
So... isn't the logical solution here to make CONFIG_EXTRA_FIRMARE
depend on (or enable) CONFIG_FIRMWARE_IN_KERNEL? After all, the two are
apparently related.
I can update my patch to include this, and rewrite the commit message so
it's relevant to modern kernels, or I can just drop this and forget the
whole affair.
- Solomon
--
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists