lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)
    From
    Date
    On 07/04/16 02:46, Linus Walleij wrote:
    > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> wrote:
    >
    >> On 06/26/16 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
    >>> Hi all,
    >>>
    >>> Changes since 20160624:
    >>>
    >>
    >> on i386, when CONFIG_OF is not enabled ...
    >> but OF_GPIO is enabled due to this in drivers/gpio/Kconfig:
    >>
    >> config OF_GPIO
    >> def_bool y
    >> depends on OF || COMPILE_TEST
    >>
    >> (above from commit 1e4a80640338924b9f9fd7a121ac31d08134410a
    >> from Alexander Stein <alexanders83@web.de>)
    >>
    >>
    >> ../drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c:381:20: error: 'pinconf_generic_dt_node_to_map_pin' undeclared here (not in a function)
    >> ../drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-cygnus-mux.c:739:20: error: 'pinconf_generic_dt_node_to_map_group' undeclared here (not in a function)
    >> ../drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-nsp-gpio.c:365:20: error: 'pinconf_generic_dt_node_to_map_pin' undeclared here (not in a function)
    >>
    >> because that function is only present when CONFIG_OF is enabled.
    >>
    >>
    >> Also, why does that commit (1e4a80640338924b9f9fd7a121ac31d08134410a)
    >> not have any other S-O-B lines in it? like whoever merged it?
    >
    > I merged it I think, Alex made a long series enabling compile
    > testing and I started to cherry-pick the first commits to let
    > them trickle in.

    I guess that when you do a git pull of a series of patches, you
    sign the pull commit but not each patch in the series?
    That could explain it.

    > I was worried about it because some of the patches caused
    > severe build problems on some archs.
    >
    > It's a bit tricky to know what to do here: we want compile
    > coverage to get proper testing, when we turn it on we get regressions,
    > so trying to improve things make things break and it becomes a
    > vicious circle of trouble. I don't know what the biggest pain is ...
    >
    > I don't really see the conclusion of this discussion thread, whether
    > I should revert the patch or not? For fixes or next?

    I agree with Arnd that this particular commit should be reverted
    (1e4a80640338924b9f9fd7a121ac31d08134410a).


    --
    ~Randy

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2016-07-04 19:01    [W:3.007 / U:0.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site