On 15/05/2023 06:34, Javier Carrasco wrote: > On 14.05.23 00:38, kernel test robot wrote: >> Hi Javier, >> >> kernel test robot noticed the following build errors: >> >> [auto build test ERROR on ac9a78681b921877518763ba0e89202254349d1b] >> >> url: https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Javier-Carrasco/Input-ts-virtobj-Add-touchsreen-virtual-object-handling/20230510-215519 >> base: ac9a78681b921877518763ba0e89202254349d1b >> patch link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230510-feature-ts_virtobj_patch-v1-3-5ae5e81bc264%40wolfvision.net >> patch subject: [PATCH 3/4] Input: st1232 - add virtual touchscreen and buttons handling >> config: arm-randconfig-m041-20230514 (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20230514/202305140640.VLcvhR5G-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/config) >> compiler: arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc (GCC) 12.1.0 >> reproduce (this is a W=1 build): >> wget https://raw.githubusercontent.com/intel/lkp-tests/master/sbin/make.cross -O ~/bin/make.cross >> chmod +x ~/bin/make.cross >> # https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commit/133c0f8c33dc5e70a72e6a7d670e133b6043a7a3 >> git remote add linux-review https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux >> git fetch --no-tags linux-review Javier-Carrasco/Input-ts-virtobj-Add-touchsreen-virtual-object-handling/20230510-215519 >> git checkout 133c0f8c33dc5e70a72e6a7d670e133b6043a7a3 >> # save the config file >> mkdir build_dir && cp config build_dir/.config >> COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-12.1.0 make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=arm olddefconfig >> COMPILER_INSTALL_PATH=$HOME/0day COMPILER=gcc-12.1.0 make.cross W=1 O=build_dir ARCH=arm SHELL=/bin/bash >> >> If you fix the issue, kindly add following tag where applicable >> | Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> >> | Link: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202305140640.VLcvhR5G-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ >> >> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): >> >> arm-linux-gnueabi-ld: drivers/input/touchscreen/st1232.o: in function `st1232_ts_parse_and_report': >>>> st1232.c:(.text+0x148): undefined reference to `ts_virtobj_is_button_slot' >>>> arm-linux-gnueabi-ld: st1232.c:(.text+0x15e): undefined reference to `ts_virtobj_button_press' >>>> arm-linux-gnueabi-ld: st1232.c:(.text+0x16c): undefined reference to `ts_virtobj_mt_on_touchscreen' >>>> arm-linux-gnueabi-ld: st1232.c:(.text+0x242): undefined reference to `ts_virtobj_mapped_buttons' >>>> arm-linux-gnueabi-ld: st1232.c:(.text+0x266): undefined reference to `ts_virtobj_is_button_slot' >>>> arm-linux-gnueabi-ld: st1232.c:(.text+0x276): undefined reference to `ts_virtobj_button_release' >> arm-linux-gnueabi-ld: drivers/input/touchscreen/st1232.o: in function `st1232_ts_probe': >>>> st1232.c:(.text+0x42c): undefined reference to `ts_virtobj_map_objects' >>>> arm-linux-gnueabi-ld: st1232.c:(.text+0x43c): undefined reference to `ts_virtobj_mapped_touchscreen' >>>> arm-linux-gnueabi-ld: st1232.c:(.text+0x44a): undefined reference to `ts_virtobj_get_touchscreen_abs' >> arm-linux-gnueabi-ld: st1232.c:(.text+0x520): undefined reference to `ts_virtobj_mapped_buttons' >>>> arm-linux-gnueabi-ld: st1232.c:(.text+0x542): undefined reference to `ts_virtobj_set_button_caps' >> > Apparently there is something wrong about the references from this patch > to a previous one from the same series ([PATCH 1/4] Input: ts-virtobj - > Add touchs[c]reen virtual object handling). The "url" link shows all > patches of this series in the right order though. > > All these functions are declared in the linux/input/ts-virtobj.h header > and also inline-defined there if ts-virtobj is not selected. If it is > selected (either y or M), the functions are exported from > driver/input/touchscreen/ts-virtobj.c. According to the error report, > ts-virtobj was selected as a module. > > I could build the kernel with the three possible configurations > (ts-virtobj y/n/M) for x86_64 as well as for arm64 with no errors or > warnings repeatedly, so I am a bit confused now. I am probably > missing something, but I do not know what. > > I wonder if the new file where the functions are defined (ts-virtobj.c) > could not be found by some reason or if the test build does not like the > way I handled the function declaration/definition. Any hint or advice > would be more than welcome. The report is correct. Build driver builtin and your virtual as module. Best regards, Krzysztof
