[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFztiKehjo7OQQFboAEfe_BrxJQG_5wxak2a_GdNBEFiMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 16:44:14 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] pin control bulk changes for v4.16
On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 2:56 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> so I would really prefer to speed up recompiles and just generally try
> to avoid horrible header file inclusion by doing the same thing in
> <linux/device.h>, adding just that
>
> struct dev_pin_info;
>
> declaration, and removing the <linux/pinctrl/devinfo.h> include.
It turns out that some pinctl users seem to depend on this broken
situation., with at least
drivers/pinctrl/core.c
drivers/media/platform/sti/c8sectpfe/c8sectpfe-core.c
drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ocelot.c
drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c
expecting to magically get some of the pinctrl function declarations
not through some pinctrl header file, but just from <linux/device.h>.
Adding that include to <linux/pinctrl/pinctrl.h> would seem to make
those happy and make 'allmodconfig' build for me.
But I'm only testing x86-64. Can somebody test at least arm too?
Stupid patch attached. I don't know how much this helps the insane
dependency hell for <linux/pinctrl/devinfo.h>, but it's bound to help
_some_.
Comments?
Linus
View attachment "patch.diff" of type "text/plain" (1062 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists