On 6/3/21 2:46 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On 5/30/21 2:31 AM, Christian Lamparter wrote:
>>> On 30/05/2021 05:11, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>> kernel test robot reports over 200 build errors and warnings
>>>> that are due to this Kconfig problem when CARL9170=m,
>>>> MAC80211=y, and LEDS_CLASS=m.
>>>>
>>>> WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for MAC80211_LEDS
>>>> Depends on [n]: NET [=y] && WIRELESS [=y] && MAC80211 [=y] &&
>>>> (LEDS_CLASS [=m]=y || LEDS_CLASS [=m]=MAC80211 [=y])
>>>> Selected by [m]:
>>>> - CARL9170_LEDS [=y] && NETDEVICES [=y] && WLAN [=y] &&
>>>> WLAN_VENDOR_ATH [=y] && CARL9170 [=m]
>>>>
>>>> CARL9170_LEDS selects MAC80211_LEDS even though its kconfig
>>>> dependencies are not met. This happens because 'select' does not follow
>>>> any Kconfig dependency chains.
>>>>
>>>> Fix this by making CARL9170_LEDS depend on MAC80211_LEDS, where
>>>> the latter supplies any needed dependencies on LEDS_CLASS.
>>>
>>> Ok, this is not what I was expecting... I though you would just
>>> add a "depends on / imply MAC80211_LEDS" on your v2. (this was
>>> based on the assumption of what mac80211, ath9k/_htc and mt76
>>> solutions of the same problem looked like).
>>
>> Do you want the user choice/prompt removed, like MT76 is?
>>
>>> But since (I assuming here) this patch passed the build-bots
>>> testing with flying colors in the different config permutations.
>>
>> It hasn't passed any build-bots testing that I know of.
>> I did 8 combinations of kconfigs (well, 2 of them were invalid),
>> but they all passed my own build testing.
>
> So is this ok to take now? Or will there be v4?
It's all good AFAIK unless Christian wants something changed.
Christian?
--
~Randy
On 03/06/2021 17:20, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 6/3/21 2:46 AM, Kalle Valo wrote:
>> Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> On 5/30/21 2:31 AM, Christian Lamparter wrote:
>>>> On 30/05/2021 05:11, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>>>> kernel test robot reports over 200 build errors and warnings
>>>>> that are due to this Kconfig problem when CARL9170=m,
>>>>> MAC80211=y, and LEDS_CLASS=m.
>>>>>
>>>>> WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for MAC80211_LEDS
>>>>> Depends on [n]: NET [=y] && WIRELESS [=y] && MAC80211 [=y] &&
>>>>> (LEDS_CLASS [=m]=y || LEDS_CLASS [=m]=MAC80211 [=y])
>>>>> Selected by [m]:
>>>>> - CARL9170_LEDS [=y] && NETDEVICES [=y] && WLAN [=y] &&
>>>>> WLAN_VENDOR_ATH [=y] && CARL9170 [=m]
>>>>>
>>>>> CARL9170_LEDS selects MAC80211_LEDS even though its kconfig
>>>>> dependencies are not met. This happens because 'select' does not follow
>>>>> any Kconfig dependency chains.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fix this by making CARL9170_LEDS depend on MAC80211_LEDS, where
>>>>> the latter supplies any needed dependencies on LEDS_CLASS.
>>>>
>>>> Ok, this is not what I was expecting... I though you would just
>>>> add a "depends on / imply MAC80211_LEDS" on your v2. (this was
>>>> based on the assumption of what mac80211, ath9k/_htc and mt76
>>>> solutions of the same problem looked like).
>>>
>>> Do you want the user choice/prompt removed, like MT76 is?
>>>
>>>> But since (I assuming here) this patch passed the build-bots
>>>> testing with flying colors in the different config permutations.
>>>
>>> It hasn't passed any build-bots testing that I know of.
>>> I did 8 combinations of kconfigs (well, 2 of them were invalid),
>>> but they all passed my own build testing.
>>
>> So is this ok to take now? Or will there be v4?
>
> It's all good AFAIK unless Christian wants something changed.
>
> Christian?
>
I think it's good. It's probably just that Kalle is busy.
From what I know, if something was wrong there the build-bots
would have already sent a letter.
Cheers,
Christian