On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 07:46:34AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 1:24 AM Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [ ... ] > > > > If anything, it's more of a side-effect to the push for COMPILE_TEST > > than anything. > > > > If the drm subsystem maintainers don't want people to build it with > COMPILE_TEST while at the same time not limiting it to platforms where > it doesn't even build, I'd suggest making it dependent on > !COMPILE_TEST. I don't think we want anything. My point was that you can't have an option that is meant to explore for bad practices and expose drivers that don't go through the proper abstraction, and at the same time complain that things gets broken. It's the whole point of it. > The same applies to all other subsystems where maintainers don't want > build tests to run but also don't want to add restrictions such as > "64-bit only". After all, this was just one example. We have drivers for some 32 bits platforms. Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
