[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140307142405.GB28943@katana>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 15:24:05 +0100
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kevin.z.m.zh@...il.com,
sunny@...winnertech.com, shuge@...winnertech.com,
zhuzhenhua@...winnertech.com, linux@....linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: mv64xxx: Fix circular dependencies warning and
compilation breakage
New patch -> new thread, please.
> This patch fixes the circular dependency introduced by commit 370136bc67c3
> ("i2c: mv64xxx: Add reset deassert call"):
>
> drivers/video/Kconfig:42:error: recursive dependency detected!
Please base it on i2c-next. I already applied my patch.
Your patch fixes the build error discovered by it.
> Since the reset framework doesn't define dummy stubs whenever
> CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER is not defined, it's the only sane way to have a driver
> that compiles in any cases.
Paragraph needs reformat. And please drop "sane". #ifdefs are not sane.
Fixing the reset framework would be sane.
> @@ -900,7 +902,8 @@ mv64xxx_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pd)
> exit_free_irq:
> free_irq(drv_data->irq, drv_data);
> exit_reset:
> - if (pd->dev.of_node && !IS_ERR(drv_data->rstc))
> + if (pd->dev.of_node && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RESET_CONTROLLER) &&
> + !IS_ERR(drv_data->rstc))
Why don't you simply set rstc to some ERR_PTR above if not
RESET_CONTROLLER?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists