From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 01:35:56 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 60/62] ARM: shmobile: work around CONFIG_PHYLIB=m Message-Id: <20140324013556.GF23924@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <1395257399-359545-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <1395257399-359545-61-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <20140320035501.GE10601@verge.net.au> <201403211643.24533.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <201403211643.24533.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 04:43:24PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 20 March 2014, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 08:29:57PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > When phylib is set to be built as a module, the lager and koelsch > > > boards fail to build: > > > > > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/built-in.o: In function `lager_ksz8041_fixup': > > > :(.text+0x738): undefined reference to `mdiobus_read' > > > :(.text+0x73c): undefined reference to `mdiobus_write' > > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/built-in.o: In function `koelsch_ksz8041_fixup': > > > :(.text+0x7e8): undefined reference to `mdiobus_read' > > > :(.text+0x7ec): undefined reference to `mdiobus_write' > > > > > > To work around that problem, this changes the code to check for > > > IS_BUILTIN rather than IS_ENABLED, turning the error into a runtime > > > problem. It's now possible to build random configurations, but the > > > phy may be set up incorrectly in this case. > > > > I wonder if Kconfig for koelsch should be tightened up somehow to > > ensure that PHYLIB is either unselected or builtin. > > > > Also, a minor nit, I would prefer changes for different boards > > in different patches. But I can split the patch myself if its > > not going to be changed otherwise. > > I would prefer to take the entire series directly into arm-soc > this time, if you don't mind. That I'm happy to go along with though I don't understand the motivation for it. And regardless of how the patches go in I'd prefer if they were split as I suggested above. What I'm not so happy about is us potentially moving a problem from being a compile time error, which is easy to observe, to a run-time behavioural problem, which may be much less obvious to the beholder.