Received: by 2002:a05:6358:d09b:b0:dc:cd0c:909e with SMTP id jc27csp14963285rwb; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 06:42:42 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA0mqf43X/jhlhkGROnfGCs3c9WWQJVrnlEgyxRZEBvNptQFBqPDX3knJya3cmsm9wG/b1QxoBTq X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:32cd:b0:189:76f0:6787 with SMTP id i13-20020a17090332cd00b0018976f06787mr11604247plr.174.1669646561896; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 06:42:41 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1669646561; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=qhhrL0Ve5/ab9D5F5bzQSk8ZAktC8v/HKRu+0YKMPX7fnZEvFpxdyOlzohLi0NrPwb RnYXFpVWlLRpjOrfMFhJ68AQ3WdlDOIBCFFe95uywxyLhINSfS8SKzAVnWP6DREH+xF/ p1sDyp5PA3jT9bTb+WKwy+X81C+bVIspqu1Nef0E3pWZGscc7lTaVazkzk22PMYpkDum l9/aglw8KvBN5nqOlXgN3f2FhefXpxmIPgP4/EHm3ObVZ1EsIPj1HrYNqx50sDSsYuit ag7AlTF1am6ojM9a2+FYlSeRzZf5FR4hG4aRfUGCQMszDYF2NbFgXlulhHzpoXdCMonq Ho4g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :organization:references:in-reply-to:message-id:subject:cc:to:from :date:dkim-signature:dkim-signature; bh=VkhskPyCJwgUEV7RLLLQCKd7o+qvCH5bVcDsV0x8RN4=; b=M0TKEId+Ja2bIIStn2sF0T+Kdr+HlwmxHO2EWosLqvmuf0gCxm94yLiJrwKu7m71HX VQTPtQXSF7vmvw1/93LaxMymqEE2OOEVCVYQYWh29aLBAwrIBNnn2TUL0en/bx4lxomf tftSFZkMiIk/xy1lQ0FIvvUwyT+Y6LRNlJmiDM5U9dkMp6CxHpjy9fbb68ZbRfhB3Xiq CWLQ8oLznr4owbKPbmr3FDbuNgG30Gs6f/GRytkaqiGlCCS8c5QPALETIfqK67kZms5Y Yqp5eyi2ciNDHJ8lAZTkFMMfQqrFVq4owwOFal4NwYCGzeC+yhpN3PbFM3O4NC1dyV0d Y9mw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.de header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=stUMV2hV; dkim=neutral (no key) header.i=@suse.de header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=zH0Xx+ZL; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=suse.de Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id pj12-20020a17090b4f4c00b0021308f24606si15330657pjb.123.2022.11.28.06.42.29; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 06:42:41 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@suse.de header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=stUMV2hV; dkim=neutral (no key) header.i=@suse.de header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=zH0Xx+ZL; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=suse.de Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231463AbiK1N4f (ORCPT + 85 others); Mon, 28 Nov 2022 08:56:35 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:52866 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232117AbiK1N4S (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2022 08:56:18 -0500 Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1c]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14FFEE39 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 05:56:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E41121B50; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 13:56:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1669643774; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=VkhskPyCJwgUEV7RLLLQCKd7o+qvCH5bVcDsV0x8RN4=; b=stUMV2hVLFmX0527MYCMl2ORlgvUzK9vqo91/bkXQ6AT+o1b6NHWzUqJb6It2t5r9Wjx44 OixFQCmSGfeEHBDANOiqPiCvl/IvT2Jfb/uzwTyclQvJzfAXiSMWVfnE5rnGXU82J9Px40 3iDlTQ97JuE44AeKlcPAUB+Z3fXXPqo= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1669643774; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=VkhskPyCJwgUEV7RLLLQCKd7o+qvCH5bVcDsV0x8RN4=; b=zH0Xx+ZLXAC1KWRoYGbsjKoua76/o4QxC+cCJnjBVBIErgefQpBNv/ZF+2k0cq+JJXErMN CyzYJjtW5hAG10Cg== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 521CC1326E; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 13:56:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id 5H9dEv69hGN0FQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Mon, 28 Nov 2022 13:56:14 +0000 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 14:56:12 +0100 From: Jean Delvare To: Mark Brown Cc: LKML , Liam Girdwood , Jaroslav Kysela , Takashi Iwai Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: rsnd: Drop obsolete dependency on COMPILE_TEST Message-ID: <20221128145612.74ff3d25@endymion.delvare> In-Reply-To: References: <20221127193441.0b54484d@endymion.delvare> Organization: SUSE Linux X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.18.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-suse-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Mark, On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 12:33:35 +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Sun, Nov 27, 2022 at 07:34:41PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > It is actually better to always build such drivers with OF enabled, > > so that the test builds are closer to how each driver will actually be > > built on its intended target. Building them without OF may not test > > much as the compiler will optimize out potentially large parts of the > > code. In the worst case, this could even pop false positive warnings. > > Dropping COMPILE_TEST here improves the quality of our testing and > > avoids wasting time on non-existent issues. > > As ever building without OF does not preclude building with OF. I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make here. Of course you can build a kernel with and without OF, and without my patch, you could build the driver with and without OF. My point is that there is no value in allowing that. There are 2 use cases for COMPILE_TEST. The first use case is kernel developers who make changes to a driver and want to be able to test-build it. Now they can just enable OF and they will be able to test-build the driver (and a better version of it, as explained in my patch description). It is no different from enabling I2C if you need to test-build an I2C driver, or enabling SPI if you need to test-build an SPI driver, etc. The second use case is the compilation farms. These will typically run pre-defined real kernel configurations or allmodconfig or randconfig. The first two options are not really affected by this change, only randconfig is. For randconfig, the limiting factor is the build power of the farm. So, in a way, yes building without OF does preclude building with OF, because you can test only one combination of options at once. Whenever you build your driver without OF, you are wasting an opportunity to build it with OF instead, which would test the code as it will actually be used on its intended target, and thus is a better test. You may argue that statistically, randconfig will select the driver more often if it depends on OF || COMPILE_TEST rather than just OF. That's true, but it's a matter of quantity versus quality. Would you rather test build the code twice in its crippled form, which may trigger false-positive warnings or hide actual warnings, or just once in its proper form, where all warnings and build failures are real? I definitely believe the latter is a better use of our resources. Thanks, -- Jean Delvare SUSE L3 Support