linux-kernel - Re: Applied "regulator: max8973: add support for junction thermal warning" to the regulator tree

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: <56DBE099.9080408@nvidia.com>
Date:	Sun, 6 Mar 2016 13:17:37 +0530
From:	Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Applied "regulator: max8973: add support for junction thermal
 warning" to the regulator tree


On Sunday 06 March 2016 08:05 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 09:25:49PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
>> The patch
>>
>>     regulator: max8973: add support for junction thermal warning
>>
>> has been applied to the regulator tree at
>>
>>     git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git
>>
>> All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
>> tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
>> the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
>> problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.
> ...and reverted because the 0day bot found similar build failures to the
> last time :(
>

I built for CONFIG_THERMAL=y and with  CONFIG_THERMAL disabled for arm64 
and it passed the build.

The failure is seen on following combination:
CONFIG_THERMAL=m
CONFIG_THERMAL_OF=y

CONFIG_REGULATOR_MAX8973=y


Here driver is built in binary and THERMAL is the loadable module.

Do we really have THERMAL as module i.e. basic framework?

I like to make 8973 independent of the THERMAL and that's why I used the 
ifdefs CONFIG_THERMAL_OF inside the driver. If THERMAL config is enabled 
then enable thermal support inside driver.

In driver, I used
#ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL_OF

This config is "y" if the THERMAL is enabled.

I made following change inside driver and then it builds properly for 
above combination:

/**
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/max8973-regulator.c 
b/drivers/regulator/max8973-regulator.c
index a5e0346..d79a487 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/max8973-regulator.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/max8973-regulator.c
@@ -474,7 +474,7 @@ static int max8973_init_dcdc(struct max8973_chip *max,
         return ret;
  }

-#ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL_OF
+#ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL
  static int max8973_thermal_read_temp(void *data, int *temp)
  {
         struct max8973_chip *mchip = data;

**/



Should I send the modified patch here?