From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40336) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fndVQ-0003Ms-7U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2018 01:29:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fndVN-0002Gv-2m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2018 01:29:04 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:49248 helo=mx1.redhat.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fndVM-0002Gg-Rz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Aug 2018 01:29:01 -0400 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE7E877886 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 05:28:59 +0000 (UTC) References: <20180808114830.7169-1-quintela@redhat.com> <20180808114830.7169-6-quintela@redhat.com> <81c76597-7dd3-59f0-8b04-4972e489bbc8@redhat.com> <87lg9gx04f.fsf@trasno.org> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <8a4af30e-b61d-6892-6a36-c18b1c9dfb8c@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 07:28:55 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87lg9gx04f.fsf@trasno.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 05/22] check: Only test usb-xhci-nec when it is compiled in List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: quintela@redhat.com Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, lvivier@redhat.com, dgilbert@redhat.com, peterx@redhat.com On 08/08/2018 07:02 PM, Juan Quintela wrote: > Thomas Huth wrote: [...] > I didn't want to go "further", but I think that we should have here is > something like: > > check-qtest-$(CONFIG_USB_XHCI_NEC) += tests/usb-hcd-xhci-test$(EXESUF) > gcov-files-$(CONFIG_USB_XHCI) += hw/usb/hcd-xhci.c > > and remove the arch specific bits. If one arch don't support it, we > know have CONFIG_USB_XHCI bits to not _enable_ it there. > > What do you think? > > Thanks, Juan. If "make check" passes with that change, that sounds like the right solution to me, too. Thomas