Re: [PATCH v4 14/16] PM / devfreq: tegra: Enable COMPILE_TEST for the driver

Thierry Reding
2019-06-04T14:10:37Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2339 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 04:53:17PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 04.06.2019 14:20, Thierry Reding пишет:
> > On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 02:38:13AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> The driver's compilation doesn't have any specific dependencies, hence
> >> the COMPILE_TEST option can be supported in Kconfig.
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/devfreq/Kconfig | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig b/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig
> >> index 56db9dc05edb..a6bba6e1e7d9 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/Kconfig
> >> @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ config ARM_EXYNOS_BUS_DEVFREQ
> >>
> >> config ARM_TEGRA_DEVFREQ
> >> tristate "NVIDIA Tegra30/114/124/210 DEVFREQ Driver"
> >> - depends on ARCH_TEGRA
> >> + depends on ARCH_TEGRA || COMPILE_TEST
> >> select PM_OPP
> >> help
> >> This adds the DEVFREQ driver for the Tegra family of SoCs.
> >
> > You need to be careful with these. You're using I/O register accessors,
> > which are not supported on the UM architecture, for example.
> >
> > This may end up getting flagged during build testing.
>
> We have similar cases in other drivers and it doesn't cause any known
> problems because (I think) build-bots are aware of this detail. Hence

I don't understand how the build-bots would be aware of this detail.
Unless you explicitly state what the dependencies are, how would the
build-bots know? Perhaps there's some logic built-in somewhere that I
don't know about?

> there is no real need to be overreactive here and in this particular
> case it's better to react to real problems once they show up (we already
> did that by fixing build breakage caused by a CLK API problem found by
> bot in v3). Does it sound like a good argument to you? ACK?

No. This strikes me as a strange argument. I'm pointing out a potential
source of problems and you just brush it aside claiming that it's not
true, or even if it was true that we'll see eventually and we can fix it
up when there's an actual problem.

Why would you want to have to fix things up if you can avoid breakage in
the first place by being a little proactive?

Thierry

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]