[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJ3xEMj3GdWbUGm8DrMhoc282FoGE9f7XxZB8tauz1J_gdK-_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 06:47:16 +0300
From: Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
Cc: Saeed Mahameed <saeedm@...lanox.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [net-next] net/mlx5e: select CONFIG_MLXFW
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> With the introduction of mlx5 firmware flash support, we get a link
> error with CONFIG_MLXFW=m and CONFIG_MLX5_CORE=y:
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/mellanox/mlx5/core/fw.o: In function `mlx5_firmware_flash':
> fw.c:(.text+0x9d4): undefined reference to `mlxfw_firmware_flash'
Thanks Arnd, I got a report on that from Jakub but you were before me here..
> We could have a more elaborate method to force MLX5 to be a loadable
> module in this case, but the easiest fix seems to be to always enable
> MLXFW as well, like we do for CONFIG_MLXSW_SPECTRUM, which is the other
> user of mlxfw_firmware_flash.
We would not want to force mlx5 users to build mlxfw.
So lets either use the more elaborate method or maybe instead of using
IS_ENABLED in mlxfw.h use IS_REACHABLE (this was suggested by Jakub)
Or.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists