[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120827185248.GE25321@flint.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 19:52:48 +0100
From: Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>
To: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@...e.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Maling List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...com>,
Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...hat.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@...com>,
Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk.h: Fix shim ifdef guard (HAVE_CLK -> COMMON_CLK)
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:28:15AM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> Commit 93abe8e4 (clk: add non HAVE_CLK routines) added shims for
> the clk code but HAVE_CLK isn't enough. It's possible to have the
> clk support but not enable it. We end up with full prototypes for code
> that is never built - causing module linking to fail later.
>
> This patch changes the guard to use COMMON_CLK, which actually guards
> the code.
This is wrong. COMMON_CLK is an _implementation_ of the CLK API. It
is not the only implementation in the kernel. Conditionalizing like
this breaks existing users.
HAVE_CLK is the right thing here - if you define HAVE_CLK then you _are_
providing an implementation of clk_get() et.al. If you're not, then you
do not define HAVE_CLK. Simples.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
--
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