On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 2:42 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023, at 23:38, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 2:35 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023, at 23:21, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > >> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 1:51 AM Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > Marking something as `depends on OF_DYNAMIC`. (Not sure whether Arnd > >> > meant that for BCM2835_VCHIQ or BCM_VIDEOCORE). > >> > Perhaps try that? > >> > > >> >> > >> >> I'm a bit surprised as I didn't observe such a thing. > >> >> But I also don't dispute it - clearly my testing was inadequate. > >> >> > >> >> I'll try and dig a bit deeper into this one. > >> >> Perhaps starting with the report from the kernel test robot [3] > >> > >> I have this in my randconfig build tree, but it looks like I never > >> sent it out. > > > > What else have you got hidden up in there? ;) > > Reviewed-by: Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Actually, I have fixes for all missing-prototype warnings > in my tree, just remembered that this one is part of my > longer series. I have about 150 patches that are already split > up and just need to be sent out, plus more that are currently > sitting in a combined changeset. All? Wanna bet we can introduce new instances of that warning faster than you can fix all of them? Actually, no I would not take that bet. I'm just having fun, thanks for all of that cleanup work! -- Thanks, ~Nick Desaulniers
