Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 May 2015 11:56:34 +0200 | From | Takashi Iwai <> | Subject | Re: [RFC v1] tree-wide: remove "select FW_LOADER" uses |
| |
At Fri, 22 May 2015 11:06:37 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 10:44 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Fri, 22 May 2015 10:17:48 +0200, > > Paul Bolle wrote: > > > Luis also tried to explain to me that disabling FW_LOADER shouldn't make > > > the build fail. (And, of course, we could decide to not care about > > > randconfig builds that have EXPERT set. Maybe we could even special case > > > EXPERT in randconfig. But that would make randconfig builds less useful. > > > That's a separate issue, anyhow.) > > > > But FW_LOADER is a tristate, so it might be inconsistent if selected > > randomly? Luis' patch doesn't add depends but just removes select. > > include/linux/firmware.h contains: > #if defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER) || (defined(CONFIG_FW_LOADER_MODULE) && defined(MODULE) > int request_firmware(const struct firmware **fw, const char *name, > struct device *device); > [...] > #else > static inline int request_firmware(const struct firmware **fw, > const char *name, > struct device *device) > { > return -EINVAL; > } > [...] > #endif > > So I _think_ the build should be fine.
Ah, OK, that would work.
> But, in case of built-in users of request_firmware() and friends, > actually using that build might not go as expected. But if you set > EXPERT and disable FW_LOADER, or as you point out, set it to 'm', you > own the pieces when things break, don't you?
Yeah, I'm not against it, too. My concern is only about the silent breakage.
Thinking of this again, I also concluded that removing the mostly superfluous "select FW_LOADER" would make things easier in the end.
> But now I'm doing Luis' job. I didn't sign off on that patch! So let's > hope Luis thought of all the corner cases.
Heh, let's hope we all reach to a happy end.
thanks,
Takashi
| |