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: <201207031106.42915.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org>
Date:	Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:06:42 +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:
>   Show Details
>   On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 08:59:11AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 03 July 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > > I came up with the attached patch. What do you think? It fixes the
> > > PowerPC allyesconfig issue for me.
> > 
> > This one looks correct, but I would still do it the other way around,
> > putting the depends statements into the locations of the other drivers.
> > The main difference is that we can then independently convert the
> > remaining drivers, without having merge conflicts in the same line
> > every time we remove one of the dependencies.
> 
> The downside of that approach, however, is to make PWM override other
> settings. For instance if you have TWL6030_PWM selected and then decide
> to also select PWM, then the former will be automatically deselected to
> satisfy the dependency. I'm not sure if that's desired.

It's true that this may be confusing, but I think it's the right
approach for future multiplatform kernels. If we have e.g. a combined
omap+ux500+imx kernel, we can only have one implementation of the
PWM interfaces, and that should be the new one.

It's less clear for the other architectures. Maybe a mixed approach
is better there, making CONFIG_PWM depend on !MACH_JZ4740 &&
!PUV3_NB0916 && !BLACKFIN, but letting the remaining ARM versions
of the PWM code depend on !PWM.

	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/