[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <526AE0EB.4020602@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:21:47 -0700
From: David Cohen <david.a.cohen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.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'
Hi Linus,
On 10/25/2013 03:49 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 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()?
I am not familiar with the HW. But checking the code, platform
initialization should fail with a dummy devm_gpio_request_one()
implementation. IMO it makes more sense to depend on GPIOLIB.
Br, David Cohen
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists