On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Monday 05 October 2015 13:44:29 Alim Akhtar wrote: >> CCing Rob Herring, >> >> Hi Arnd, >> >> On 10/01/2015 04:59 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > On Thursday 01 October 2015 18:46:34 kbuild test robot wrote: >> >> [auto build test results on v4.3-rc3 -- if it's inappropriate base, please ignore] >> >> >> >> config: x86_64-allmodconfig (attached as .config) >> >> reproduce: >> >> git checkout 6e153e3bf7c68b019e987c5a0ffadebd9c7d4fbb >> >> # save the attached .config to linux build tree >> >> make ARCH=x86_64 >> >> >> >> All error/warnings (new ones prefixed by >>): >> >> >> >>>> ERROR: "ufs_hba_exynos_ops" [drivers/scsi/ufs/ufshcd-pltfrm.ko] undefined! >> >> >> >> >> > >> > Ah, this seems to be a case of layering violation. It would be best to >> > restructure the code so that the exynos driver registers a platform_driver >> > by itself for the respective DT compatible string, and then calls >> > into the common code from its probe function, rather than having the >> > generic driver know about the specific backends. >> > >> > That approach will also make the generic driver more scalable as we >> > add further chip-specific variations, and matches what we do in other >> > drivers. >> > >> >> Looks like some discussions on ufs variant driver probe method happened >> here [1] few months back. >> [1]-> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/3/180 > > Hmm, too bad we didn't catch it then, it's much more work to fix now. What you suggested is what is being implemented[1]. It is not merged yet. The core is a library and the platform specific parts create the driver. Rob [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/2/364 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
