linux-kernel - Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the mfd tree

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20250904063043.GE2764654@google.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 07:30:43 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
Cc: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@...tq-group.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the mfd tree

On Thu, 04 Sep 2025, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> After merging the mfd tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 allmodconfig)
> failed like this:
> 
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: vmlinux.o: in function `stmpe_gpio_get':
> gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a7c29): undefined reference to `stmpe_reg_read'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: vmlinux.o: in function `stmpe_gpio_get_direction':
> gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a7db2): undefined reference to `stmpe_reg_read'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: vmlinux.o: in function `stmpe_gpio_irq_sync_unlock':
> gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a8166): undefined reference to `stmpe_reg_write'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a82ef): undefined reference to `stmpe_reg_read'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a8372): undefined reference to `stmpe_reg_read'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: vmlinux.o: in function `stmpe_gpio_irq':
> gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a8c27): undefined reference to `stmpe_block_read'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a8f05): undefined reference to `stmpe_reg_write'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a8f89): undefined reference to `stmpe_reg_write'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: vmlinux.o: in function `stmpe_gpio_disable':
> gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a91dc): undefined reference to `stmpe_disable'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: vmlinux.o: in function `stmpe_gpio_set':
> gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a93a4): undefined reference to `stmpe_reg_write'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a941e): undefined reference to `stmpe_set_bits'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: vmlinux.o: in function `stmpe_gpio_direction_output':
> gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a95a4): undefined reference to `stmpe_set_bits'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: vmlinux.o: in function `stmpe_gpio_direction_input':
> gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a9705): undefined reference to `stmpe_set_bits'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: vmlinux.o: in function `stmpe_gpio_request':
> gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a983e): undefined reference to `stmpe_set_altfunc'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: vmlinux.o: in function `stmpe_dbg_show_one':
> gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a99c0): undefined reference to `stmpe_reg_read'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a9b8c): undefined reference to `stmpe_reg_read'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a9bb1): undefined reference to `stmpe_reg_read'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a9c61): undefined reference to `stmpe_reg_read'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21a9e6c): undefined reference to `stmpe_reg_read'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: vmlinux.o: in function `stmpe_gpio_probe':
> gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21aa5b2): undefined reference to `stmpe_enable'
> x86_64-linux-gnu-ld: gpio-stmpe.c:(.text+0x21aa83e): undefined reference to `stmpe_disable'
> 
> Presumably caused by commit
> 
>   e160dd0ac8c3 ("mfd: stmpe: Allow building as module")

Okay, I have removed this patch until it can be better tested.

> I have used the mfd tree from next-20250903 for today.
> 
> Note that commit
> 
>  03db20aaa3ba ("gpio: stmpe: Allow to compile as a module")
> 
> is in the gpio-brgl tree which has not been merged into linux-next at
> this point.

Okay, perhaps these need to go in together then.

Thanks Stephen.


-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]