linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: Tree for Mar 26 (drivers/mfd/lpc

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1833e29a-3d16-7041-dd75-784ae4e07faf@infradead.org>
Date:   Fri, 26 Mar 2021 11:26:39 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
        Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Denis Turischev <denis@...pulab.co.il>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Mar 26 (drivers/mfd/lpc_sch.c)

On 3/26/21 11:20 AM, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On 3/26/21 1:34 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Changes since 20210325:
>>
> 
> on i386 or x86_64:
> aha:
> # CONFIG_PCI is not set
> 
> 
> ../drivers/mfd/lpc_sch.c:204:1: warning: data definition has no type or storage class
>  module_pci_driver(lpc_sch_driver);
>  ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ../drivers/mfd/lpc_sch.c:204:1: error: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘module_pci_driver’ [-Werror=implicit-int]
> ../drivers/mfd/lpc_sch.c:204:1: warning: parameter names (without types) in function declaration
> ../drivers/mfd/lpc_sch.c:197:26: warning: ‘lpc_sch_driver’ defined but not used [-Wunused-variable]
>  static struct pci_driver lpc_sch_driver = {
>                           ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> Full x86_64 randconfig file is attached.

This is the root of the problem I think:

WARNING: unmet direct dependencies detected for LPC_SCH
  Depends on [n]: HAS_IOMEM [=y] && PCI [=n]
  Selected by [m]:
  - GPIO_SCH [=m] && GPIOLIB [=y] && X86 [=y] && (X86 [=y] || COMPILE_TEST [=y]) && ACPI [=y]


Denis, that still looks like it's your territory.

thanks.
-- 
~Randy