[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160412191149.GC4174@localhost>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 12:11:49 -0700
From: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, arm@...nel.org,
andre.przywara@....com, arnd@...db.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64/sunxi: 4.6-rc1: Add dependency on generic irq chip
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:03:06AM +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> Commit ce3dd55b99b1 ("arm64: Introduce Allwinner SoC config option"),
> added support for ARCH_SUNXI on arm64, but failed to select
> GENERIC_IRQ_CHIP, which is required for drivers/irqchip/irq-sunxi-nmi.c
> and causes build failures like :
>
> UPD include/generated/compile.h
> CC init/version.o
> LD init/built-in.o
> drivers/built-in.o: In function `sunxi_sc_nmi_set_type':
> drivers/irqchip/irq-sunxi-nmi.c:114: undefined reference to `irq_setup_alt_chip'
> drivers/built-in.o: In function `irq_domain_add_linear':
> include/linux/irqdomain.h:253: undefined reference to `irq_generic_chip_ops'
> include/linux/irqdomain.h:253: undefined reference to `irq_generic_chip_ops'
> drivers/built-in.o: In function `sunxi_sc_nmi_irq_init':
> drivers/irqchip/irq-sunxi-nmi.c:146: undefined reference to `irq_alloc_domain_generic_chips'
> drivers/irqchip/irq-sunxi-nmi.c:161: undefined reference to `irq_get_domain_generic_chip'
> drivers/irqchip/irq-sunxi-nmi.c:170: undefined reference to `irq_gc_mask_clr_bit'
> drivers/irqchip/irq-sunxi-nmi.c:171: undefined reference to `irq_gc_mask_set_bit'
> drivers/irqchip/irq-sunxi-nmi.c:172: undefined reference to `irq_gc_ack_set_bit'
> drivers/irqchip/irq-sunxi-nmi.c:170: undefined reference to `irq_gc_mask_clr_bit'
>
> Fixes: commit ce3dd55b99b1 ("arm64: Introduce Allwinner SoC config option")
> Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>
It'd be nice to have a silent Kconfig entry that selects from ARCH_SUNXI that
sets this dependency, instead of having it from the architecture code. This
pushes down the dependency to the right level.
Can you respin with it like that instead?
-Olof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists