[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=oko_C8_46Y8p5O1Qvw1KEn-1PjA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 11:42:04 -0600
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, Dmitry Artamonow <mad_soft@...ox.ru>,
x86@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org, Harald Welte <laforge@...fiish.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: add GPIOF_ values regardless on kconfig settings
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Mark Brown
<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 11:04:52AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> I ended up not pushing this one to Linus. Turns out it causes other
>> breakage on other platforms that don't include include/linux/gpio.h.
>> Since I don't have confidence that I'll be able to find all the
>> offenders, I'm dropping it. I recommend making any drivers that are
>
> So, this originally came about because I pushed back on adding random
> dependencies like this for features which are pretty much optional in
> drivers - their use of GPIOs is totally optional and the dependencies
> are just too fragile, leading to noise with all the randconfigs. It
> seems better to get the architectures to keep up with enhancements to
> gpiolib (or convert to it) than to have to worry about this in drivers.
Fair enough. Randy, if you or someone else can check that all GPIOF_
users have the required #include <linux/gpio.h>, then I'm okay with
this patch.
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists