Hi, On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:11:38PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 02:15:11PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > If we don't stup that call out, we will have > > build failures for any drivers using that function > > when .config happens to have CONFIG_REGULATOR=n. > > > > One such case below, found with randconfig > > > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/mdp/mdp4/mdp4_kms.c: In function ‘mdp4_kms_init’: > > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/mdp/mdp4/mdp4_kms.c:384:2: error: implicit declaration \ > > As previously and repeatedly reported the regulator usage in this driver > appears extremely problematic, among these problems is that it almost > certainly has no sensible reason to be using regulator_get_exclusive() > or any variant of it. Sadly every time it's been raised with the video > people they've completely ignored the mail so here we are. > > Right now not having the stub seems to only be affecting buggy users > (which given the use cases for _exclusive() isn't *that* surprising) so > I'm more inclined to leave this there in the hope that the users get > fixed or we can at least get some sort of dialogue with the relevant > maintainers. quite frankly, flawed or not, I still think it's wrong of regulator framework to cause a build break during randconfig. Pretty much every other call is stubbed out, why wouldn't this be ? Moreover, if nobody cared to this day, why would this randconfig build break change their minds ? Not that I really care, it's just yet another build break I need to ignore when build-testing. Whatever. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
