[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9c942ec3-6611-dd5b-f922-d227fab3f23e@codethink.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:45:39 +0100
From: Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@...ethink.co.uk>
To: Peter Chen <hzpeterchen@...il.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>, kbuild-all@...org,
linux-kernel@...ts.codethink.co.uk,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Peter Chen <peter.chen@...escale.com>,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] USB: core: fix missing include <linux/usb/of.h>
On 15/06/16 03:43, Peter Chen wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 01:08:08PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 3:04:27 AM CEST kbuild test robot wrote:
>>>>> drivers/usb/core/of.c:32:21: error: redefinition of 'usb_of_get_child_node'
>>> struct device_node *usb_of_get_child_node(struct device_node *parent,
>>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> In file included from drivers/usb/core/of.c:21:0:
>>> include/linux/usb/of.h:36:35: note: previous definition of 'usb_of_get_child_node' was here
>>> static inline struct device_node *usb_of_get_child_node
>>> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> vim +/usb_of_get_child_node +32 drivers/usb/core/of.c
>>>
>>> 69bec725 Peter Chen 2016-02-19 26 * @portnum: the port number which device is connecting
>>> 69bec725 Peter Chen 2016-02-19 27 *
>>> 69bec725 Peter Chen 2016-02-19 28 * Find the node from device tree according to its port number.
>>> 69bec725 Peter Chen 2016-02-19 29 *
>>> 69bec725 Peter Chen 2016-02-19 30 * Return: On success, a pointer to the device node, %NULL on failure.
>>> 69bec725 Peter Chen 2016-02-19 31 */
>>> 69bec725 Peter Chen 2016-02-19 @32 struct device_node *usb_of_get_child_node(struct device_node *parent,
>>> 69bec725 Peter Chen 2016-02-19 33 int portnum)
>>> 69bec725 Peter Chen 2016-02-19 34 {
>>> 69bec725 Peter Chen 2016-02-19 35 struct device_node *node;
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think what we want here is to make the compilation of of.o conditional on
>> CONFIG_OF, so we get only one of the two definitions.
>>
>> Arnd
>
> Thanks, Arnd. It is the correct solution, I will send patch soon.
Aha, I didn't think of that. Thanks.
--
Ben Dooks http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer Codethink - Providing Genius
Powered by blists - more mailing lists