On 2024-09-04 3:58 a.m., Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
Hi Trevor,
On Tue, Aug 20, 2024 at 05:07:27PM -0400, Trevor Gamblin wrote:
On 2024-08-20 3:19 a.m., kernel test robot wrote:
Hi Trevor,
kernel test robot noticed the following build errors:
[auto build test ERROR on ac6a258892793f0a255fe7084ec2b612131c67fc]
url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Trevor-Gamblin/dt-bindings-iio-adc-add-AD762x-AD796x-ADCs/20240819-221425
base: ac6a258892793f0a255fe7084ec2b612131c67fc
patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240819-ad7625_r1-v3-2-75d5217c76b5%40baylibre.com
patch subject: [PATCH v3 2/3] iio: adc: ad7625: add driver
config: alpha-randconfig-r132-20240820 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240820/202408201520.lFtco3eF-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/config)
compiler: alpha-linux-gcc (GCC) 13.3.0
reproduce: (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20240820/202408201520.lFtco3eF-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/reproduce)
Seems to be a problem with missing static inline definitions in pwm.h if
CONFIG_PWM isn't set. I've replied to the relevant series on the PWM mailing
list and will add "select PWM" to Kconfig for this driver.
I'm not a big fan of the dummy static inlines. It seems to be a somewhat
subjective thing, but I think that usually if a driver makes use of PWM
functions it doesn't work at all if CONFIG_PWM=n. Does your driver work
with CONFIG_PWM=n? If not, even if the dummy inline was there, I'd
recommend at least a
No, it won't build without pwm_round_waveform_might_sleep() and
pwm_set_waveform_might_sleep(), which setting CONFIG_PWM=n seems to hide.
I'll add depends on PWM to the next round of the patch series.
Thanks!
depends on PWM || COMPILE_TEST
. (This is also the implicit recommendation to use "depends" and not
"select". Currently all drivers needing PWM use "depends" and mixing
yields strange effects in menuconfig.)
Currently there is only a single driver that uses "depends on PWM ||
COMPILE_TEST" (i.e. SENSORS_PWM_FAN). I already considered changing that
to plain "depends on PWM" and get rid of the dummy defines. While I
didn't tackle that one yet, I'd like to not introduce dummys for the new
waveform functions. So I suggest you either stick to
depends on PWM
or try to convince me that these dummys are a good idea (and then
probably use "... || COMPILE_TEST").
Best regards
Uwe
