From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Frank Rowand Subject: Re: [Patch v3 1/3] dt: OF_UNITTEST make dependency broken, framework fixes Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:18:14 -0700 Message-ID: <550337F6.70404@gmail.com> References: <5501918D.2020000@gmail.com> Reply-To: frowand.list@gmail.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rob Herring Cc: Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Michal Marek , Linux Kernel list , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 3/13/2015 6:13 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Frank Rowand wrote: >> From: Frank Rowand >> >> This 3 patch series is not bisectable. If CONFIG_OF_UNITTEST=y then the kernel >> will not build with just patch 1 or just patches 1 and 2 applied. > > If you did 2 patches with the move first, wouldn't that make it > bisectable. However, I'd rather avoid the move. Yes, I did not like the move either. Fortunately you gave me the cluebat I needed to avoid the move. > >> If CONFIG_OF_UNITTEST=y then a kernel image make will always cause .version to >> be incremented, even if there are not source changes. This is caused by >> a lack of dependency tracking and checking for >> drivers/of/unittest-data/testcases.dtb.o. Fixing the problem was made more >> complicated by the fact that testcases.dtb.o was linked into ../of_unittest.o. > > Couldn't we change that to be 2 modules. Thanks, that was just the hint I needed to realize that of_unittest.o was just an artifact of the problem I was trying to solve. I will send a new patch that removes the of_unittest.o cruft and does not need to move unittest.c > >> Patch 1 modifies makefiles to move of_unittest.c into unittest-data/ and >> creates missing dependency tracking for testcases.dtb.o. >> >> Patch 2 will move of_unittest.c into unittest-data/ >> >> Patch 3 will fix an of_unittest.c include path to account for the move. > > This should all be in an intro email, not patch #1.