[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <578498E7.4080709@iommu.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:14:47 +0800
From: Wan Zongshun <vw@...mu.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, jason@...edaemon.net,
Wan Zongshun <mcuos.com@...il.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/10] ARM: NUC900: Add nuc970 machine support
On 2016年07月12日 12:30, Wan Zongshun wrote:
>
>
> On 2016年07月12日 00:04, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 3:27:21 PM CEST Wan Zongshun wrote:
>>> +ifeq ($(CONFIG_SOC_NUC970),)
>>> obj-y := irq.o time.o mfp.o gpio.o clock.o
>>> obj-y += clksel.o dev.o cpu.o
>>> +endif
>>> # W90X900 CPU support files
>>
>> When mfp.o is disabled like this, I get a link error in two drivers
>> using the exported interface:
>>
>> ERROR: "mfp_set_groupg" [drivers/spi/spi-nuc900.ko] undefined!
>> ERROR: "mfp_set_groupi" [drivers/input/keyboard/w90p910_keypad.ko]
>> undefined!
>
> Why remove mfp modules? this multifunction pin driver should be used for
> those two drivers, if no mfp_set_groupX, I don't think driver can work.
>
> Now mfp has standard driver subsystem?
>
>>
>> Any idea for a better migration strategy?
Arnd, If you still think the mfp should be removed, we can send a series
patches to instead of using mfp interface quickly, and do mfp set in
local driver. Do you think it is ok?
>>
>> Arnd
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists