On 07/17/2014 06:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 17 July 2014 17:29:31 Chen Gang wrote: >>> >>> COMPILE_TEST is a great tool in general, but it has its limits. >>> In particular, the case for !CONFIG_IOMEM is completely obscure >>> and we won't find any bugs by allowing more drivers to be built >>> in those configurations, but attempting to do it would cause >>> endless churn by changing each instance of 'depends on HAS_IOMEM' >>> to 'depends on HAS_IOMEM || COMPILE_TEST'. >>> >> >> Architecture members and driver members really have different tastes, >> they are different roles. It really need additional discussion. >> >> For me, I only want to change devm_io*map*, not touch so much. > > But what do you gain from that? All drivers that need these > functions should already 'depends on HAS_IOMEM' and if they don't, > we should fix /that/ instead. I don't see this dependency as any > different from a lot of others (PCI, DMAENGINE, HAVE_CLK, ...) > that we use to intentionally annotate drivers that need a particular > feature to be present for compilation. Do you want to do the > same hack to those? > >> Welcome any other members' idea or suggestions. > >>> Note that s390 no has gained support for IOMEM, tile has it most >>> of the time (when PCI is enabled, so you get it in half the >>> test builds already), score should set HAS_IOMEM and doesn't >>> even have public compilers, and uml doesn't even compile in >>> latest mainline. Nothing else ever sets NO_IOMEM. >>> >> I guess, we are just discussing about them in another threads, so I skip them. If it is still necessary to reply (e.g. I misunderstand), please let me know, thanks. >> In latest gcc and binutils, can compile score cross compiler >> successfully for building kernel (but I am not quite sure whether the >> compiling result are really OK, but I guess so). > > Ok. Would you mind sending a patch that enables HAS_IOMEM on > score? > For me, welcome the score related maintainers' idea and suggestions. >> And next (maybe after finish allmodconfig for microblaze), I shall try >> to let uml pass allmodconfig for linux-next tree. > > That is a fair goal, but it seems better to do that by ensuring > we don't build any code that tries to call the MMIO functions > rather than trying to make them build. > When I am performing uml, I will try and also communicate with the related maintainers for it (their suggestions and ideas are valuable). Thanks. -- Chen Gang Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
