linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (pwm tree related)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201206302012.32476.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org>
Date:	Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:12:32 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@...aro.org>
To:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
Cc:	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (pwm tree related)

On Saturday 30 June 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > I think that all the drivers that are not converted to the common PWM
> > layer yet should depend on not enabling the common code. Once they
> > are all moved over, that dependency will go away.
> 
> Right. That's exactly what I meant. If we add depends on !HAVE_PWM to
> the PWM symbol that should result in both options conflicting, and
> therefore not being built at the same time.

But I would add it to all other ones then, not the generic one!

One question though: if the generic pwm implementation does not set
HAVE_PWM, how can a driver check its presence?

	Arnd

--
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/