On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 5:41 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 6:14 PM Brendan Higgins > <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 4:40 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 11/28/18 12:56 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/of/Kconfig b/drivers/of/Kconfig > > > >> index ad3fcad4d75b8..f309399deac20 100644 > > > >> --- a/drivers/of/Kconfig > > > >> +++ b/drivers/of/Kconfig > > > >> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ if OF > > > >> config OF_UNITTEST > > > >> bool "Device Tree runtime unit tests" > > > >> depends on !SPARC > > > >> + depends on KUNIT > > > > Unless KUNIT has depends, better to be a select here. > > > > > > That's just style or taste. I would prefer to use depends > > > instead of select, but that's also just my preference. > > > > I prefer depends too, but Rob is the maintainer here. > > Well, we should be consistent, not the follow the whims of each maintainer. Sorry, I don't think that came out the way I meant it. I don't really think we are consistent on this point across the kernel, and I don't feel very strongly about the point, so I was just looking to follow the path of least resistance. (I also just assumed Rob would keep us consistent within drivers/of/.) I figure if we are running unit tests from the test runner script or from an automated system, you won't be hunting for dependencies for a single test every time you want to run a test, so select doesn't make it easier to configure in most imagined use cases. KUNIT hypothetically should not depend on anything, so select should be safe to use. On the other hand, if we end up being wrong on this point and KUnit gains widespread adoption, I would prefer not to be in a position where I have to change a bunch of configs all over the kernel because this example got copied and pasted.
