On 9/12/23 00:47, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Mon, 11 Sep 2023, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 9/10/23 19:11, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Please do *not* include material destined for v6.7 in your linux-next >>> included branches until *after* v6.6-rc1 has been released. Also, >>> do *not* rebase your linu-next included branches onto v6.5. >>> >>> Changes since 20230908: >>> >>> Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 643 >>> 614 files changed, 227990 insertions(+), 9502 deletions(-) >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> on x86_64: >> >> # CONFIG_ACPI is not set >> CONFIG_DRM_I915=y >> CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE=m >> >> I915 selects BACKLIGHT_CLASS_DEVICE if ACPI is set. >> >> ld: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.o: in function `intel_backlight_device_register': >> intel_backlight.c:(.text+0x4988): undefined reference to `backlight_device_get_by_name' >> ld: intel_backlight.c:(.text+0x4a1b): undefined reference to `backlight_device_register' >> ld: drivers/gpu/drm/i915/display/intel_backlight.o: in function `intel_backlight_device_unregister': >> intel_backlight.c:(.text+0x4b56): undefined reference to `backlight_device_unregister' > > This comes up periodically. The fix is for i915 to depend on backlight, > but it's not possible to fix just i915, as it'll lead to circular deps > unless *all* select backlight is switched to depend on backlight. > > I've gone through it once [1], and not keen on doing it again unless > there's buy-in. > > IS_REACHABLE() is often suggested as a workaround, but I think it's just > plain wrong. i915=y backlight=m is not a configuration that makes > sense. Kernel configuration is hard enough, there's no point in allowing > dumb configs that just silently don't work. > Yes, IS_REACHABLE() is just fugly nonsense. Thanks for the reminder of your attempt(s). > > BR, > Jani. > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/1413580403-16225-1-git-send-email-jani.nikula@xxxxxxxxx > > > -- ~Randy
