From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752678AbbJMTbD (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:31:03 -0400 Received: from mx-rz-3.rrze.uni-erlangen.de ([131.188.11.22]:32798 "EHLO mx-rz-3.rrze.uni-erlangen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751565AbbJMTbA (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 15:31:00 -0400 X-RRZE-Submit-IP: 2001:638:a000:4142::ff0f:d304 To: Jonas Gorski From: Andreas Ziegler Subject: Re: spi/bcm63xx: fix standard accessors and compile guard X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Cc: Mark Brown , linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Valentin Rothberg , Paul Bolle Message-ID: <561D5BE1.2040109@fau.de> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 21:30:41 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Jonas, your patch "spi/bcm63xx: fix standard accessors and compile guard" showed up as commit 682b5280bf00 in linux-next today (that is, next-20151013). I noticed it because we (a research group from Erlangen[0]) are running daily checks on linux-next. Your commit fixes two #ifdef statements in drivers/spi/spi-bcm63xx.c which involve CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN. >>From the Makefile at drivers/spi/Makefile (line 20), we can see that the file can only be built when CONFIG_SPI_BCM63XX is set. In the corresponding Kconfig file (drivers/spi/Kconfig, line 137), CONFIG_SPI_BCM63XX is defined to depend on CONFIG_BCM63XX. The latter is defined in arch/mips/Kconfig (line 199), and selects CONFIG_SYS_SUPPORTS_BIG_ENDIAN (but not CONFIG_SYS_SUPPORTS_LITTLE_ENDIAN). Finally, CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN (at arch/mips/Kconfig, line 1136) depends on CONFIG_SYS_SUPPORTS_BIG_ENDIAN, which means that if the source file is to be compiled, CONFIG_CPU_BIG_ENDIAN is the only possible selection in the endianness choice. Hence, the #ifdefs are unnecessary and could possibly be removed. Is this correct, or am I missing something? Best regards, Andreas [0] https://cados.cs.fau.de