On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 03:19:57PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 02:46:24PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 02:21:55PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 02:13:35PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 01:44:52PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 01:38:15PM +0200, Raag Jadav wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 10:21:13AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 10:17:42AM +0530, Raag Jadav wrote: ... > > > > Better CI coverage? > > > > > > How? I do not see the difference, can you elaborate? > > > (Assuming that CIs are using the merge_config.sh approach or alike) > > > > That is my understanding of it. > > > > config COMPILE_TEST > > bool "Compile also drivers which will not load" > > depends on HAS_IOMEM > > help > > Some drivers can be compiled on a different platform than they are > > intended to be run on. Despite they cannot be loaded there (or even > > when they load they cannot be used due to missing HW support), > > developers still, opposing to distributors, might want to build such > > drivers to compile-test them. > > Yes, and how does my suggestion prevent from this happening? Nothing's preventing it, but since we have an opportunity to allow a wider build test (even without arch or mfd dependency), shouldn't we allow it? Raag