netdev - Re: [gpio:for-next 67/67] pch_gbe_main.c:undefined reference to `devm_gpio_request

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]

Date:	Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:49:31 +0200
From:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Cc:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>,
	Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@...dia.com>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [gpio:for-next 67/67] pch_gbe_main.c:undefined reference to `devm_gpio_request_one'

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Linus Walleij
<linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:

>> I wouldn't object to adding a dependency to GPIO_PCH and GPIOLIB
>> unconditionally for PCH_GBE as GPIO_PCH is the same chip... but I don't
>> know if David Miller would be amenable to that.
>
> Well we should probably just stick a dependency to GPIOLIB in there.
>
> - It #includes <linux/gpio.h>
> - It uses gpiolib functions to do something vital
>
> It was just happy that dummy versions were slotted in until now.

...or maybe I'm just confused now?

Should we just add a static inline stub of devm_gpio_request_one()?

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html