On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 08:24:02AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 03:01:39PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 05:48:44AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > On 01/08/2014 05:29 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > >On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 08:20:55AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > >>On Mon, Jan 06, 2014 at 04:39:47PM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > >>>On Sun, Jan 05, 2014 at 10:22:51AM -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > > > >>>>arm:allmodconfig fails to build with several undefined drm and host1x symbols. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/bus.c:52: undefined reference to `drm_dev_alloc' > > > >>>>drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/bus.c:56: undefined reference to `drm_dev_register' > > > >>>>drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/bus.c:67: undefined reference to `drm_dev_free' > > > >>>>drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/bus.c:75: undefined reference to `drm_put_dev' > > > >>>>drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/drm.c:445: undefined reference to `host1x_syncpt_get_base' > > > >>>>drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/drm.c:449: undefined reference to `host1x_syncpt_base_id' > > > >>>> > > > >>>>and so on. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>This is caused by DRM=m but DRM_TEGRA=y. DRM_TEGRA is bool while DRM is > > > >>>>tristate. DRM_TEGRA can not be set to tristate because it depends on unexported > > > >>>>host1x symbols (and possibly others). Fix by updating DRM_TEGRA dependency. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Also, the DRM_TEGRA help text states that it can be built as module. > > > >>>>Remove that text since it is not (or no longer) correct. > > > >>>> > > > >>>>Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >>>>--- > > > >>>> drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/Kconfig | 5 +---- > > > >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > >>> > > > >>>Hi Guenter, > > > >>> > > > >>>I think this should be fixed in latest next, where it is now possible to > > > >>>build the Tegra DRM driver as a module. All needed host1x symbols are > > > >>>exported as well. > > > >>> > > > >>>One thing that strikes me as odd, though, is that I've always thought > > > >>>Kconfig would warn if a symbol selected as =y depended on a symbol > > > >>>selected as =m, precisely because of what you describe above. menuconfig > > > >>>complains about it pretty loudly as well. > > > >>> > > > >>>Oh, but I see that if I change DRM_TEGRA back to be bool, then Kconfig > > > >>>doesn't complain anymore, even if DRM_TEGRA=y and DRM=m. Should that > > > >>>perhaps be considered a bug? > > > >>> > > > >>No idea. All I know is that it causes a build failure ;-). > > > >> > > > >>Anyway, are there plans to push the patches changing DRM_TEGRA to tristate > > > >>into 3.13 ? This is one of the reasons for arm:allmodconfig to fail. If there > > > >>are no plans to push the patches into 3.13, I think it would make sense > > > >>to send my patch to Linus and apply the tristate changes on top of it. > > > > > > > >The patches to change DRM_TEGRA to tristate are part of what is queued > > > >for 3.14. While I agree that having allmodconfig working is a worthwhile > > > >goal in itself for build testing, I'm not sure it warrants a patch this > > > >late in the release cycle that will cause conflicts during the merge > > > >window. > > > > > > > >It also seems like there are other issues that prevent allmodconfig to > > > >build successfully on ARM not all of them being as easy to fix as this > > > >one. > > > > > > > > > > All other problems are being addressed. > > > > Okay, if this is indeed the only remaining issue then I think it makes > > sense indeed to go through the trouble of fixing it right away rather > > than waiting for 3.14. > > > > > If arm:allmodconfig is not pursued as buildable, trying to build it is worthless, > > > and I'll drop it from my list of test builds for -stable. Thanks for letting me know. > > > > Right, I hadn't considered -stable builds and this is an issue that's > > new in 3.13, isn't it? In that case, and since this is the only > > remaining issue, the above patch: > > > > Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Dave, since this is a single patch for 3.13 it might be easier for you > > to pick it up directly rather than have me send out a pull request. > > Either way is fine with me, though. > > > > For now I have dropped arm:allmodconfig from my list of build tests and replaced > it with a number of additional individual target builds. As I had this or > similar discussions ever since I started testing -stable builds, my conclusion > is that the arm community isn't much interested in keeping arm:allmodconfig > buildable. If that ever changes, I'll be happy to add it back in. I can't speak for the community as a whole, but I'm certainly interested in having more automated build coverage. Last time I attempted an allmod build on ARM myself, which must have been at least 3 months ago, there were quite a few issues and I didn't have the time to fix all of them. I hadn't realize that things had improved that much recently. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpbMh4586ebq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
