Lior David <liord@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 8/8/2017 2:03 PM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Maya Erez <qca_merez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> From: Gidon Studinski <qca_gidons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Since debugfs is a kernel configuration option, enable the driver to
>>> compile without debugfs.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gidon Studinski <qca_gidons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Maya Erez <qca_merez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_DEBUG_FS)
>>> int wil6210_debugfs_init(struct wil6210_priv *wil);
>>> void wil6210_debugfs_remove(struct wil6210_priv *wil);
>>> +#else
>>> +static inline int wil6210_debugfs_init(struct wil6210_priv *wil) { return 0; }
>>> +static inline void wil6210_debugfs_remove(struct wil6210_priv *wil) {}
>>> +#endif
>>
>> I was thinking more that should we have CONFIG_WIL6210_DEBUGFS, just
>> like we have CONFIG_ATH10K_DEBUGFS and CONFIG_ATH9K_DEBUGFS? This way it
>> can be controlled per driver if debugfs interface is available or not.
>>
> Hi Kalle, I am answering instead of Maya, she is currently on holiday.
> We will consider this and resend the patch.
Ok, no rush.
> Is it possible to apply the other patches in the v4 series except this one and
> patch #2 (the scan timeout module parameter)?
I was actually planning to do exactly that. I was just waiting for
kbuild bot results because I had to fix a trivial conflict after
removing patch 2.
--
Kalle Valo
