[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201207030806.49561.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:06:49 +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 Tuesday 03 July 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 04:18:46PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Thierry,
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:11:15 +0200 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't see how that can happen. If you have CONFIG_TWL6030_PWM=y, then
> > > you should also have CONFIG_HAVE_PWM=y, which would in turn conflict
> > > with CONFIG_PWM=y.
> > >
> > > I'll have to fetch a powerpc toolchain and try to reproduce this.
> >
> > CONFIG_HAVE_PWM only exists on arm, mips and unicore32 ... so the "select
> > HAVE_PWM" will not do anything on any other architecture.
>
> So one option would be to add HAVE_PWM on powerpc, or alternatively to
> explicitly add a conflict to the TWL6030_PWM symbol (and any others that
> implement the legacy API). I'd think the second alternative is
> preferable and actually matches what Arnd proposed previously. Maybe
> this was exactly the reason he suggested that solution in the first
> place.
It's not what I was thinking of explicitly, but it's a good
reason nonetheless ;-)
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists