Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] drm/dsi: Try to match non-DT dsi devices

[Archit Taneja <architt@codeaurora.org>]

On 12/07/2015 02:40 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015, Archit Taneja <architt@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> On 12/07/2015 02:15 PM, Jani Nikula wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2015, Archit Taneja <architt@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On 11/30/2015 06:15 PM, kbuild test robot wrote:
>>>>> Hi Archit,
>>>>>
>>>>> [auto build test ERROR on: v4.4-rc3]
>>>>> [also build test ERROR on: next-20151127]
>>>>>
>>>>> url:    https://github.com/0day-ci/linux/commits/Archit-Taneja/drm-dsi-DSI-for-devices-with-different-control-bus/20151130-200725
>>>>> config: x86_64-allyesdebian (attached as .config)
>>>>> reproduce:
>>>>>            # save the attached .config to linux build tree
>>>>>            make ARCH=x86_64
>>>>>
>>>>> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>):
>>>>>
>>>>>       drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c: In function 'of_mipi_dsi_device_add':
>>>>>>> drivers/gpu/drm/drm_mipi_dsi.c:168:6: error: implicit declaration of function 'of_modalias_node' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>>>>         if (of_modalias_node(node, info.type, sizeof(info.type)) < 0) {
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestions on how to fix this? Is it ok to make DRM_MIPI_DSI
>>>> depend on CONFIG_OF?
>>>
>>> Please don't.
>>
>> Just curious, how did x86 use DSI if the only way to create DSI devices
>> until now was via DT?
>
> Oh, you want the gory details... we use the DSI code as a library for
> abstraction and helpers, without actually creating or registering the
> devices.

Okay, got it. I'll go with the IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) approach.

Humble request: Next time if I share something that doesn't make sense, 
please reply with something more than a "Please don't". That just sounds
condescending and doesn't really help me with my cause either.

Thanks,
Archit

>
> BR,
> Jani.
>
>
>>
>> Archit
>>
>>>
>>> BR,
>>> Jani.
>>>
>

-- 
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora 
Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation