Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752730AbcKQLzW (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:55:22 -0500 Received: from lb1-smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net ([194.109.24.22]:46056 "EHLO lb1-smtp-cloud3.xs4all.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750794AbcKQLzV (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Nov 2016 06:55:21 -0500 Message-ID: <1479383715.19539.53.camel@tiscali.nl> Subject: Re: i2c: undefined option I2C_ALGO_BUSCLEAR From: Paul Bolle To: Valentin Rothberg Cc: smohammed@nvidia.com, treding@nvidia.com, Michal Marek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:55:15 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20161117113301.qqce6a4kmmsv6ijl@tumbleweed> References: <1479373111.19539.24.camel@tiscali.nl> <20161117113301.qqce6a4kmmsv6ijl@tumbleweed> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.20.5 (3.20.5-1.fc24) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1164 Lines: 34 Hi Valentin, On Thu, 2016-11-17 at 12:33 +0100, Valentin Rothberg wrote: > I tested your patch and it works properly for me. It even still applies > on linux-next. Cool. (We should probably compile a list of current invalid selects somewhere publicly, and team up to submit patches for the low hanging fruit (ie, obvious typos) and for the arches that actually matter before I resubmit.) > Would it be possible to extend your patch to also check > symbols in other statements (depends on, if, etc.)? No. Depending on an unknown symbol is common and correct. Think depends on SOME_OBSCURE_ARM_BOARD somewhere in drivers. Only arm builds will ever know about the SOME_OBSCURE_ARM_BOARD symbol. What could be done is starting any "make *config" target with a treewide pass over all Kconfig files to collect all valid symbols and so spot typos and other obviously incorrect. The example that comes to mind is     depends on SH that I have spotted a few times in the past years. But this treewide pass will incur some runtime cost and might not be easy to implement cleanly. Perhaps we're better of with using your script for that. Thanks, Paul Bolle