On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 02:29PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 01:56:26PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2023, at 13:44, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > > Le 26/01/2023 à 11:19, Andy Shevchenko a écrit : > > >> On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 08:14:49AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote: > > >>> Le 25/01/2023 à 21:10, Andy Shevchenko a écrit : > > >>>> From: Pierluigi Passaro <pierluigi.p@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>> > > >>>> Both the functions gpiochip_request_own_desc and > > >>>> gpiochip_free_own_desc are exported from > > >>>> drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c > > >>>> but this file is compiled only when CONFIG_GPIOLIB is enabled. > > >>>> Move the prototypes under "#ifdef CONFIG_GPIOLIB" and provide > > >>>> reasonable definitions and includes in the "#else" branch. > > >>> > > >>> Can you give more details on when and why link fails ? > > >>> > > >>> You are adding a WARN(), I understand it mean the function should never > > >>> ever be called. Shouldn't it be dropped completely by the compiler ? In > > >>> that case, no call to gpiochip_request_own_desc() should be emitted and > > >>> so link should be ok. > > >>> > > >>> If link fails, it means we still have unexpected calls to > > >>> gpiochip_request_own_desc() or gpiochip_free_own_desc(), and we should > > >>> fix the root cause instead of hiding it with a WARN(). > > >> > > >> I agree, but what do you suggest exactly? I think the calls to that functions > > >> shouldn't be in the some drivers as it's layering violation (they are not a > > >> GPIO chips to begin with). Simply adding a dependency not better than this one. > > >> > > > > > > My suggestion is to go step by step. First step is to explicitely list > > > drivers that call those functions without selecting GPIOLIB. > > > > I tried that and sent the list of the drivers that call these functions, > > but as I wrote, all of them already require GPIOLIB to be set. > > > > This means either I made a mistake in my search, or the problem > > has already been fixed. Either way, I think Andy should provide > > the exact build failure he observed so we know what caller caused > > the issue. > > I believe it's not me, who first reported it. So, Pierluigi, can you point > out to the LKP message that reported the issue? > > P.S> LKP sometimes finds a really twisted configurations to probe on. > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko > I've received the following messages: - https://lore.kernel.org/all/202301240409.tZdm0o0a-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ - https://lore.kernel.org/all/202301240439.wYz6uU0k-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ - https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230124075600.649bd7bb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Please let me know if you need further details. Regards Pier
