linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 18/19] PM / devfreq: tegra: Enable COMPILE

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <77653f79-45ef-1557-c940-0140bcb69311@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Apr 2019 18:52:58 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@...sung.com>,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@...sung.com>,
        Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.vizoso@...labora.com>
Cc:     linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 18/19] PM / devfreq: tegra: Enable COMPILE_TEST for the
 driver

16.04.2019 10:43, Chanwoo Choi пишет:
> On 19. 4. 15. 오후 11:55, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> The driver's compilation doesn't have any specific dependencies, hence
>> the COMPILE_TEST option can be supported in Kconfig.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/devfreq/Kconfig | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig b/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig
>> index 78c33ddd4eea..bd6652863e7d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig
>> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig
>> @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ config ARM_EXYNOS_BUS_DEVFREQ
>>  
>>  config ARM_TEGRA_DEVFREQ
>>  	tristate "NVIDIA Tegra30+ DEVFREQ Driver"
>> -	depends on ARCH_TEGRA
>> +	depends on ARCH_TEGRA || COMPILE_TEST
>>  	select PM_OPP
>>  	help
>>  	  This adds the DEVFREQ driver for the Tegra family of SoCs.
>>
> 
> I think that it doesn't need to make it a separate patch.
> You can merge this patch to patch17 and then drop this patch.
> 

I'd prefer to have this change as a separate patch because this is a logically distinct change from the patch 17.