On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 08:30:39PM +0800, Xiong Zhou wrote: > So the failure comes. Yes, this config is kind of specific, not much. Right, but look at what the options are doing - ALL_CODECS is purely for build coverage so someone seeing the issue in this form must be running a partial build coverage test which happens to cover a relatively obscure subsystem. This is why none of the all*configs that are run on -next as standard fail. > The definition of one array which is cited by one module comes in > another module, and this dependence does not appear in Kconfig > architecture. Indeed, the help text of ALL_CODECS reminds the > separated surpporting bus options. Still I think this is unreasonable. > Even though build coverage test is the only proper purpose. It breaks > the whole building procedure. I'm not saying this doesn't need to be fixed, I'm saying we need a sane fix. > I think copying the same array definition across c file is ugly, and Mark > said that this is not a Kconfig issue. So far, I have not got any other > idea to fix this. Code cruising. I actually looked at this earlier and sent a fix for it (didn't get round to mailing this thread yet, sorry), the code wouldn't have worked at all for WM2200 - this is the sort of thing that should be apparent as soon as people start asking questions like "why was this dependency added, is it sensible?" which should be among the first questions asked when turning up something like this, especially for recent changes.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
