From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 21 (panel-simple.c) Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 10:10:20 +0200 Message-ID: <20131022081019.GA15640@ulmo.nvidia.com> References: <1382369814-7582-1-git-send-email-treding@nvidia.com> <5265B6A2.4090404@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm" Return-path: Received: from mail-bk0-f54.google.com ([209.85.214.54]:63111 "EHLO mail-bk0-f54.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751325Ab3JVIMu (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Oct 2013 04:12:50 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5265B6A2.4090404@infradead.org> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Randy Dunlap Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Mark Brown , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 04:20:02PM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 10/21/13 08:36, Thierry Reding wrote: > > Hi all, > >=20 > > I've uploaded today's linux-next tree to the master branch of the > > repository below: > >=20 > > git://gitorious.org/thierryreding/linux-next.git > >=20 > > A next-20131021 tag is also provided for convenience. > >=20 > > Gained a couple new conflicts, loads of build failures. I've tried to > > fix the most obvious ones, but as a downside haven't gotten around to > > write up the specifics about the conflicts. I might still do that > > tomorrow, but I figured most people wouldn't have time to look into > > those anyway given that they'll be busy with the conferences. >=20 > on i386: >=20 > drivers/built-in.o: In function `panel_simple_probe': > panel-simple.c:(.text+0x3c7ca): undefined reference to `of_find_backlight= _by_node' Hi Randy, Thanks for running this. I'll come up with a patch to fix this, since I originally wrote of_find_backlight_by_node(). Running the randconfig that you provided yielded some other interesting warnings, though. There are a few occurrences where gcc compiles about functions not returning a value, which is caused by people assuming that BUG() never returns. But it happens that your randconfig also unsets CONFIG_BUG, which turns BUG into a no-op and therefore causing gcc to rightfully complain. Before attempting to fix these, I was wondering whether that would be considered useful. I personally think that we should eliminate warnings as much as possible because it helps filtering out genuine problems. But the BUG Kconfig option also depends on EXPERT, so I guess it's usually not even visible and possibly not worth bothering about. Thierry --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSZjLrAAoJEN0jrNd/PrOhxo8P/j5nnW9B1jemQVFH1511Afhh MJ/w5wEfOyu8XyVKaesQhrLP3qtYqamRTRd5ATCMDTlMBDfgO7O+79ynZyRBUR0x 6RYeS4mx3W2yd04NRKJe628TA/2+PYG+Kd9/8zYeeYwBhhcsDTY/PXuXqhRXBy2r 11lfsYG7pYJH1QDVAwWM0c9Hlj6h7xyYh0+yC4tBYJR00hSRBcyPNNMzDD3so8pT Q7E6ojOzBbW6mn/Smo53mfViz/dAfL+hndRXflYKi0DKP3WM2SuhvM847QXg2qUv 3Qm1tuPf/7K2M/hIXeCnOe9aeKGKDXoV+q6kSPnBNUXgMXtP+MljLpdpjlBS4hex LRpg4cP7OGHvEoNJBKz5u2GbouowUeEwb3tkXK3TCGzojYD+AJhJ8UiK2E1vgPX6 3Ys+HtzC7hZJ9hs/rUeNc34gYxXWVg8sqZZjOUlVF9EffAPahP6oYfNRilRyWEhj kRUOdGLdxhBP2OJtELahBgLfHXTiascyBQG6VzIcCV42gdbo2pPay+14LXGP7lr2 TBc95CaAtMxVBZCR9Yry/dkno1oTmZARWBQt/AWrTH6PYI9/MtwB3C69+WKNqN9M newpo+Nnl84GmXGGRYclAwKCZCUyJi3K3vdhXuAiWyFm6nqFLCjcmtv4JvdmS53Y QfG87rZMHaEJ3Uq6szkU =CzMp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --uAKRQypu60I7Lcqm--