[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <F70B6328-5DF2-4CCC-9AAF-DD49BDA267A5@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:31:02 -0500
From: Kumar Gala <galak@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, adrian.bunk@...ial.fi
Subject: Re: [RFC] Make board force selection of PHYLIB
On Jun 3, 2008, at 10:18 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 2008, at 10:10 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> I'd rather avoid adding another case where the kernel needs to
>>> know what modules are being built, though, especially if the
>>> result of changing the .config and building modules is a
>>> mysterious runtime failure (due to a missing platform fixup)
>>> rather than compile- or insertion-time.
>> I don't follow what you are getting at here. Is this something
>> more than #ifdef PHYLIB in the platform code?
>
> If you just #ifdef PHYLIB, then things will break if the user does
> this:
> make config, GIANFAR=PHYLIB=n
> make zImage
> make config, GIANFAR=PHYLIB=m
> make modules
>
> And the cause of the failure will not be something that obviously
> points to a build problem, such as unresolved symbols.
what you are suggesting will not break with my patch.
The second case will for PHYLIB=y w/the select.
> I'd rather just unconditionally select PHYLIB on platforms that need
> to do fixups.
But you don't need fix ups for the phy if you don't have the enet
driver that the phy is connected to in your system.
(But I do understand the desire to be generous, but I think we can get
this right).
- k
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists