* linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree
@ 2013-01-18 3:03 Stephen Rothwell
2013-01-18 7:57 ` [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB Shawn Guo
2013-01-18 8:02 ` linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree Shawn Guo
0 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2013-01-18 3:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij; +Cc: linux-next, linux-kernel, Shawn Guo
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 854 bytes --]
Hi Linus,
After merging the gpio-lw tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
drivers/gpio/devres.c:51:5: error: redefinition of 'devm_gpio_request'
include/linux/gpio.h:97:19: note: previous definition of 'devm_gpio_request' was here
drivers/gpio/devres.c:80:5: error: redefinition of 'devm_gpio_request_one'
include/linux/gpio.h:109:19: note: previous definition of 'devm_gpio_request_one' was here
drivers/gpio/devres.c:113:6: error: redefinition of 'devm_gpio_free'
include/linux/gpio.h:128:20: note: previous definition of 'devm_gpio_free' was here
Presumably caused by commit d39cd0301255 ("gpio: devm_gpio_* support
should not depend on GPIOLIB").
I have used the version of the gpio-lw tree from next-20130117 for today.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB
2013-01-18 3:03 linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree Stephen Rothwell
@ 2013-01-18 7:57 ` Shawn Guo
2013-01-18 22:33 ` Linus Walleij
2013-01-18 8:02 ` linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree Shawn Guo
1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Shawn Guo @ 2013-01-18 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij; +Cc: Stephen Rothwell, linux-next, linux-kernel, Shawn Guo
Some architectures (e.g. blackfin) provide gpio API without requiring
GPIOLIB support (ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB). devm_gpio_* functions
should also work for these architectures, since they do not really
depend on GPIOLIB.
Add a new option GPIO_DEVRES (enabled by default) to control the build
of devres.c. It also removes the empty version of devm_gpio_*
functions for !GENERIC_GPIO build from linux/gpio.h, and moves the
function declarations from asm-generic/gpio.h into linux/gpio.h.
Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
---
drivers/gpio/Kconfig | 3 +++
drivers/gpio/Makefile | 3 ++-
include/asm-generic/gpio.h | 6 ------
include/linux/gpio.h | 28 ++++++++--------------------
4 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/Kconfig b/drivers/gpio/Kconfig
index 682de75..d972932 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/gpio/Kconfig
@@ -30,6 +30,9 @@ config ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
Selecting this from the architecture code will cause the gpiolib
code to always get built in.
+config GPIO_DEVRES
+ def_bool y
+ depends on HAS_IOMEM
menuconfig GPIOLIB
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/Makefile b/drivers/gpio/Makefile
index c5aebd0..36ca605 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/gpio/Makefile
@@ -2,7 +2,8 @@
ccflags-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_GPIO) += -DDEBUG
-obj-$(CONFIG_GPIOLIB) += gpiolib.o devres.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_DEVRES) += devres.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_GPIOLIB) += gpiolib.o
obj-$(CONFIG_OF_GPIO) += gpiolib-of.o
obj-$(CONFIG_GPIO_ACPI) += gpiolib-acpi.o
diff --git a/include/asm-generic/gpio.h b/include/asm-generic/gpio.h
index 2341014..45b8916 100644
--- a/include/asm-generic/gpio.h
+++ b/include/asm-generic/gpio.h
@@ -192,12 +192,6 @@ extern int gpio_request_one(unsigned gpio, unsigned long flags, const char *labe
extern int gpio_request_array(const struct gpio *array, size_t num);
extern void gpio_free_array(const struct gpio *array, size_t num);
-/* bindings for managed devices that want to request gpios */
-int devm_gpio_request(struct device *dev, unsigned gpio, const char *label);
-int devm_gpio_request_one(struct device *dev, unsigned gpio,
- unsigned long flags, const char *label);
-void devm_gpio_free(struct device *dev, unsigned int gpio);
-
#ifdef CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS
/*
diff --git a/include/linux/gpio.h b/include/linux/gpio.h
index bfe6656..f6c7ae3 100644
--- a/include/linux/gpio.h
+++ b/include/linux/gpio.h
@@ -94,24 +94,12 @@ static inline int gpio_request(unsigned gpio, const char *label)
return -ENOSYS;
}
-static inline int devm_gpio_request(struct device *dev, unsigned gpio,
- const char *label)
-{
- return -ENOSYS;
-}
-
static inline int gpio_request_one(unsigned gpio,
unsigned long flags, const char *label)
{
return -ENOSYS;
}
-static inline int devm_gpio_request_one(struct device *dev, unsigned gpio,
- unsigned long flags, const char *label)
-{
- return -ENOSYS;
-}
-
static inline int gpio_request_array(const struct gpio *array, size_t num)
{
return -ENOSYS;
@@ -125,14 +113,6 @@ static inline void gpio_free(unsigned gpio)
WARN_ON(1);
}
-static inline void devm_gpio_free(struct device *dev, unsigned gpio)
-{
- might_sleep();
-
- /* GPIO can never have been requested */
- WARN_ON(1);
-}
-
static inline void gpio_free_array(const struct gpio *array, size_t num)
{
might_sleep();
@@ -248,4 +228,12 @@ gpiochip_remove_pin_ranges(struct gpio_chip *chip)
#endif /* ! CONFIG_GENERIC_GPIO */
+struct device;
+
+/* bindings for managed devices that want to request gpios */
+int devm_gpio_request(struct device *dev, unsigned gpio, const char *label);
+int devm_gpio_request_one(struct device *dev, unsigned gpio,
+ unsigned long flags, const char *label);
+void devm_gpio_free(struct device *dev, unsigned int gpio);
+
#endif /* __LINUX_GPIO_H */
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree
2013-01-18 3:03 linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree Stephen Rothwell
2013-01-18 7:57 ` [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB Shawn Guo
@ 2013-01-18 8:02 ` Shawn Guo
2013-01-18 23:40 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Shawn Guo @ 2013-01-18 8:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: Linus Walleij, linux-next, linux-kernel
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 02:03:46PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Linus,
>
> After merging the gpio-lw tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
My bad, sorry for that. I just sent a v2 in reply to this message
for fixing the error. I spent some time trying to install a ppc64
toolchain for testing, but unfortunately with on luck. So Stephen,
I have to rely on linux-next to give it a test again. Thanks.
Shawn
> drivers/gpio/devres.c:51:5: error: redefinition of 'devm_gpio_request'
> include/linux/gpio.h:97:19: note: previous definition of 'devm_gpio_request' was here
> drivers/gpio/devres.c:80:5: error: redefinition of 'devm_gpio_request_one'
> include/linux/gpio.h:109:19: note: previous definition of 'devm_gpio_request_one' was here
> drivers/gpio/devres.c:113:6: error: redefinition of 'devm_gpio_free'
> include/linux/gpio.h:128:20: note: previous definition of 'devm_gpio_free' was here
>
> Presumably caused by commit d39cd0301255 ("gpio: devm_gpio_* support
> should not depend on GPIOLIB").
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB
2013-01-18 7:57 ` [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB Shawn Guo
@ 2013-01-18 22:33 ` Linus Walleij
2013-02-10 4:46 ` Max Filippov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2013-01-18 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shawn Guo; +Cc: Stephen Rothwell, linux-next, linux-kernel
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> Some architectures (e.g. blackfin) provide gpio API without requiring
> GPIOLIB support (ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB). devm_gpio_* functions
> should also work for these architectures, since they do not really
> depend on GPIOLIB.
>
> Add a new option GPIO_DEVRES (enabled by default) to control the build
> of devres.c. It also removes the empty version of devm_gpio_*
> functions for !GENERIC_GPIO build from linux/gpio.h, and moves the
> function declarations from asm-generic/gpio.h into linux/gpio.h.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
OK I removed the old version of the patch and pushed this instead.
Thanks!
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree
2013-01-18 8:02 ` linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree Shawn Guo
@ 2013-01-18 23:40 ` Stephen Rothwell
2013-01-21 6:20 ` Shawn Guo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2013-01-18 23:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shawn Guo; +Cc: Linus Walleij, linux-next, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 692 bytes --]
Hi Shawn,
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:02:13 +0800 Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> My bad, sorry for that. I just sent a v2 in reply to this message
> for fixing the error. I spent some time trying to install a ppc64
> toolchain for testing, but unfortunately with on luck. So Stephen,
> I have to rely on linux-next to give it a test again. Thanks.
Cross compilers suitable for building kernels are available at
http://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ . However, in this case, you
probably just need to get the right combination of CONFIG options. I
will give it a spin early next week.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree
2013-01-21 6:20 ` Shawn Guo
@ 2013-01-21 5:53 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2013-01-21 5:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Shawn Guo; +Cc: Linus Walleij, linux-next, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 864 bytes --]
Hi Shawn,
On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:20:13 +0800 Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:40:45AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:02:13 +0800 Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > My bad, sorry for that. I just sent a v2 in reply to this message
> > > for fixing the error. I spent some time trying to install a ppc64
> > > toolchain for testing, but unfortunately with on luck. So Stephen,
> > > I have to rely on linux-next to give it a test again. Thanks.
> >
> > Cross compilers suitable for building kernels are available at
> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ .
>
> Thanks for the link, Stephen. I installed the compiler and verified
> that the v2 fixes the error.
Thanks.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree
2013-01-18 23:40 ` Stephen Rothwell
@ 2013-01-21 6:20 ` Shawn Guo
2013-01-21 5:53 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Shawn Guo @ 2013-01-21 6:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: Linus Walleij, linux-next, linux-kernel
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:40:45AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Shawn,
>
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:02:13 +0800 Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > My bad, sorry for that. I just sent a v2 in reply to this message
> > for fixing the error. I spent some time trying to install a ppc64
> > toolchain for testing, but unfortunately with on luck. So Stephen,
> > I have to rely on linux-next to give it a test again. Thanks.
>
> Cross compilers suitable for building kernels are available at
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ .
Thanks for the link, Stephen. I installed the compiler and verified
that the v2 fixes the error.
Shawn
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB
2013-01-18 22:33 ` Linus Walleij
@ 2013-02-10 4:46 ` Max Filippov
2013-02-11 14:13 ` Linus Walleij
2013-02-13 13:37 ` Shawn Guo
0 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Max Filippov @ 2013-02-10 4:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij; +Cc: Shawn Guo, Stephen Rothwell, linux-next, linux-kernel
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> Some architectures (e.g. blackfin) provide gpio API without requiring
>> GPIOLIB support (ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB). devm_gpio_* functions
>> should also work for these architectures, since they do not really
>> depend on GPIOLIB.
>>
>> Add a new option GPIO_DEVRES (enabled by default) to control the build
>> of devres.c. It also removes the empty version of devm_gpio_*
>> functions for !GENERIC_GPIO build from linux/gpio.h, and moves the
>> function declarations from asm-generic/gpio.h into linux/gpio.h.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
>
> OK I removed the old version of the patch and pushed this instead.
Hi,
this patch causes the following errors for xtensa defconfig build:
include/asm-generic/gpio.h:265:2: error: implicit declaration of
function '__gpio_get_value' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
include/asm-generic/gpio.h:271:2: error: implicit declaration of
function '__gpio_set_value' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
include/linux/gpio.h:60:90: error: redefinition of 'gpio_cansleep'
include/linux/gpio.h:62:2: error: implicit declaration of function
'__gpio_cansleep' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
include/linux/gpio.h:67:2: error: implicit declaration of function
'__gpio_to_irq' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
drivers/gpio/devres.c:26:2: error: implicit declaration of function
'gpio_free' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
drivers/gpio/devres.c:60:2: error: implicit declaration of function
'gpio_request' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
drivers/gpio/devres.c:90:2: error: implicit declaration of function
'gpio_request_one' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
--
Thanks.
-- Max
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB
2013-02-10 4:46 ` Max Filippov
@ 2013-02-11 14:13 ` Linus Walleij
2013-02-11 16:50 ` Max Filippov
2013-02-11 20:23 ` Stephen Rothwell
2013-02-13 13:37 ` Shawn Guo
1 sibling, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2013-02-11 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Max Filippov; +Cc: Shawn Guo, Stephen Rothwell, linux-next, linux-kernel
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Some architectures (e.g. blackfin) provide gpio API without requiring
>>> GPIOLIB support (ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB). devm_gpio_* functions
>>> should also work for these architectures, since they do not really
>>> depend on GPIOLIB.
>>>
>>> Add a new option GPIO_DEVRES (enabled by default) to control the build
>>> of devres.c. It also removes the empty version of devm_gpio_*
>>> functions for !GENERIC_GPIO build from linux/gpio.h, and moves the
>>> function declarations from asm-generic/gpio.h into linux/gpio.h.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
>>
>> OK I removed the old version of the patch and pushed this instead.
>
> Hi,
>
> this patch causes the following errors for xtensa defconfig build:
Max, can you point us to an xtensa cross-compiler so we can
figure out where the problem is?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB
2013-02-11 14:13 ` Linus Walleij
@ 2013-02-11 16:50 ` Max Filippov
2013-02-12 12:35 ` Linus Walleij
2013-02-11 20:23 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Max Filippov @ 2013-02-11 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij; +Cc: Shawn Guo, Stephen Rothwell, linux-next, linux-kernel
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 5:46 AM, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Some architectures (e.g. blackfin) provide gpio API without requiring
>>>> GPIOLIB support (ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB). devm_gpio_* functions
>>>> should also work for these architectures, since they do not really
>>>> depend on GPIOLIB.
>>>>
>>>> Add a new option GPIO_DEVRES (enabled by default) to control the build
>>>> of devres.c. It also removes the empty version of devm_gpio_*
>>>> functions for !GENERIC_GPIO build from linux/gpio.h, and moves the
>>>> function declarations from asm-generic/gpio.h into linux/gpio.h.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> OK I removed the old version of the patch and pushed this instead.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> this patch causes the following errors for xtensa defconfig build:
>
> Max, can you point us to an xtensa cross-compiler so we can
> figure out where the problem is?
Hi Linus,
I use the following scripts to build cross-compiler for xtensa:
https://github.com/jcmvbkbc/xtensa-toolchain-build
You'd need to download binutils/gcc/gdb source tarballs with versions
specified in config and then run
$ ./prepare.sh fsf && ./fixup-gdb.sh && ./build.sh fsf
FWIW I see that the issue is caused by building drivers/gpio/devres.c
with CONFIG_GPIOLIB=n. Should I just turn GPIO_DEVRES off too?
--
Thanks.
-- Max
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB
2013-02-11 14:13 ` Linus Walleij
2013-02-11 16:50 ` Max Filippov
@ 2013-02-11 20:23 ` Stephen Rothwell
1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2013-02-11 20:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij; +Cc: Max Filippov, Shawn Guo, linux-next, linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 391 bytes --]
Hi Linus,
On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:13:20 +0100 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Max, can you point us to an xtensa cross-compiler so we can
> figure out where the problem is?
Prebuilt toolchains suitable for building the kernel can be found at
http://www.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ .
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB
2013-02-11 16:50 ` Max Filippov
@ 2013-02-12 12:35 ` Linus Walleij
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2013-02-12 12:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Max Filippov; +Cc: Shawn Guo, Stephen Rothwell, linux-next, linux-kernel
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW I see that the issue is caused by building drivers/gpio/devres.c
> with CONFIG_GPIOLIB=n. Should I just turn GPIO_DEVRES off too?
Hm. Shawn just added:
+config GPIO_DEVRES
+ def_bool y
+ depends on HAS_IOMEM
Can you please patch the last line like so:
depends on (HAS_IOMEM && GPIOLIB)
I think that's the actual problem... Maybe also move this
config option below the GPIOLIB entry. Or move it under
the #if GPIOLIB even.
Can you send a patch that works for you?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB
2013-02-10 4:46 ` Max Filippov
2013-02-11 14:13 ` Linus Walleij
@ 2013-02-13 13:37 ` Shawn Guo
1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Shawn Guo @ 2013-02-13 13:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Max Filippov; +Cc: Linus Walleij, Stephen Rothwell, linux-next, linux-kernel
Sorry for the late response due to Chinese New Year Holidays here.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 07:46:30AM +0300, Max Filippov wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Some architectures (e.g. blackfin) provide gpio API without requiring
> >> GPIOLIB support (ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB). devm_gpio_* functions
> >> should also work for these architectures, since they do not really
> >> depend on GPIOLIB.
> >>
> >> Add a new option GPIO_DEVRES (enabled by default) to control the build
> >> of devres.c. It also removes the empty version of devm_gpio_*
> >> functions for !GENERIC_GPIO build from linux/gpio.h, and moves the
> >> function declarations from asm-generic/gpio.h into linux/gpio.h.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
> >
> > OK I removed the old version of the patch and pushed this instead.
>
> Hi,
>
> this patch causes the following errors for xtensa defconfig build:
>
I assume this is a build of arch/xtensa/common_defconfig.
> include/asm-generic/gpio.h:265:2: error: implicit declaration of
> function '__gpio_get_value' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> include/asm-generic/gpio.h:271:2: error: implicit declaration of
> function '__gpio_set_value' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> include/linux/gpio.h:60:90: error: redefinition of 'gpio_cansleep'
> include/linux/gpio.h:62:2: error: implicit declaration of function
> '__gpio_cansleep' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> include/linux/gpio.h:67:2: error: implicit declaration of function
> '__gpio_to_irq' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> drivers/gpio/devres.c:26:2: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'gpio_free' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> drivers/gpio/devres.c:60:2: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'gpio_request' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> drivers/gpio/devres.c:90:2: error: implicit declaration of function
> 'gpio_request_one' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>
I'm not sure why GENERIC_GPIO is needed for this build at all. At
least, with the change below, everything seems building fine with
common_defconfig.
Shawn
diff --git a/arch/xtensa/Kconfig b/arch/xtensa/Kconfig
index 13358e1..cfc41f3 100644
--- a/arch/xtensa/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/xtensa/Kconfig
@@ -31,9 +31,6 @@ config RWSEM_XCHGADD_ALGORITHM
config GENERIC_HWEIGHT
def_bool y
-config GENERIC_GPIO
- def_bool y
-
config ARCH_HAS_ILOG2_U32
def_bool n
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree
2012-08-23 21:43 ` Linus Walleij
@ 2012-08-27 1:16 ` Kuninori Morimoto
0 siblings, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Kuninori Morimoto @ 2012-08-27 1:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Stephen Rothwell, Kuninori Morimoto,
linux-kernel, linux-next
Hi Linus W
> > Now, these fixup patches were accepted.
> > http://git.kernel.org/tip/17d83127d4c2b322dd8f217e0ac08c66eb403779
> > http://git.kernel.org/tip/b3ae66f209e8929db62b5a5f874ab2cdcf5ef1d4
> >
> > Could you please re-check this dropped patch ?
>
> Yes! I've applied it. Check that it lands nicely in -next.
Thank you !
It works on my board.
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree
2012-08-22 5:03 ` Kuninori Morimoto
@ 2012-08-23 21:43 ` Linus Walleij
2012-08-27 1:16 ` Kuninori Morimoto
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2012-08-23 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kuninori Morimoto
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Stephen Rothwell, Kuninori Morimoto,
linux-kernel, linux-next
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 7:03 AM, Kuninori Morimoto
<kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> wrote:
> Now, these fixup patches were accepted.
> http://git.kernel.org/tip/17d83127d4c2b322dd8f217e0ac08c66eb403779
> http://git.kernel.org/tip/b3ae66f209e8929db62b5a5f874ab2cdcf5ef1d4
>
> Could you please re-check this dropped patch ?
Yes! I've applied it. Check that it lands nicely in -next.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree
2012-07-09 20:34 ` Linus Walleij
2012-07-24 3:56 ` Kuninori Morimoto
@ 2012-08-22 5:03 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2012-08-23 21:43 ` Linus Walleij
1 sibling, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Kuninori Morimoto @ 2012-08-22 5:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Stephen Rothwell, Kuninori Morimoto,
linux-kernel, linux-next
Hi Linus W
> >> >> > After merging the gpio-lw tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> >> >> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ERROR: "irq_set_chip_and_handler_name" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
> >> >> > ERROR: "dummy_irq_chip" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks, I've dropped the offending patch, Kuninori can you look into this and
> >> >> provide a new patch? It's the second patch from your patch set.
> >> >
> >> > OK. I will, but it will be next week.
> >> > And could you please show me where is your repository/branch ?
> >>
> >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git;a=summary
> >> branch devel/for-next
> >
> > In my check, these are export symbol issue.
> > I think above 2 function/struct were not exported for module.
> >
> > Is it poosible to solve this issue by these patches ?
>
> Hm Thomas has to answer to that (and merge the patches, if he
> likes them).
Now, these fixup patches were accepted.
http://git.kernel.org/tip/17d83127d4c2b322dd8f217e0ac08c66eb403779
http://git.kernel.org/tip/b3ae66f209e8929db62b5a5f874ab2cdcf5ef1d4
Could you please re-check this dropped patch ?
it was
[PATCH 2/2 v3][resend] gpio: pcf857x: enable gpio_to_irq() support
(https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/14/654)
I can resend this patch if you want
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree
2012-07-09 20:34 ` Linus Walleij
@ 2012-07-24 3:56 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2012-08-22 5:03 ` Kuninori Morimoto
1 sibling, 0 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Kuninori Morimoto @ 2012-07-24 3:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Stephen Rothwell, Kuninori Morimoto,
linux-kernel, linux-next
Hi Thomas
Could you please teach me current status of these patches ?
Kuninori Morimoto (2):
genirq: export irq_set_chip_and_handler_name()
genirq: export dummy_irq_chip
At Mon, 9 Jul 2012 22:34:23 +0200,
Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Kuninori Morimoto
> <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Linus Walleij, Stephen, and Thomas
> >
> >> >> > After merging the gpio-lw tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> >> >> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ERROR: "irq_set_chip_and_handler_name" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
> >> >> > ERROR: "dummy_irq_chip" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks, I've dropped the offending patch, Kuninori can you look into this and
> >> >> provide a new patch? It's the second patch from your patch set.
> >> >
> >> > OK. I will, but it will be next week.
> >> > And could you please show me where is your repository/branch ?
> >>
> >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git;a=summary
> >> branch devel/for-next
> >
> > In my check, these are export symbol issue.
> > I think above 2 function/struct were not exported for module.
> >
> > Is it poosible to solve this issue by these patches ?
>
> Hm Thomas has to answer to that (and merge the patches, if he
> likes them).
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree
2012-07-09 2:04 ` Kuninori Morimoto
@ 2012-07-09 20:34 ` Linus Walleij
2012-07-24 3:56 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2012-08-22 5:03 ` Kuninori Morimoto
0 siblings, 2 replies; 23+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2012-07-09 20:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kuninori Morimoto
Cc: Thomas Gleixner, Stephen Rothwell, Kuninori Morimoto,
linux-kernel, linux-next
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Kuninori Morimoto
<kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> wrote:
> Hi Linus Walleij, Stephen, and Thomas
>
>> >> > After merging the gpio-lw tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
>> >> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
>> >> >
>> >> > ERROR: "irq_set_chip_and_handler_name" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
>> >> > ERROR: "dummy_irq_chip" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
>> >>
>> >> Thanks, I've dropped the offending patch, Kuninori can you look into this and
>> >> provide a new patch? It's the second patch from your patch set.
>> >
>> > OK. I will, but it will be next week.
>> > And could you please show me where is your repository/branch ?
>>
>> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git;a=summary
>> branch devel/for-next
>
> In my check, these are export symbol issue.
> I think above 2 function/struct were not exported for module.
>
> Is it poosible to solve this issue by these patches ?
Hm Thomas has to answer to that (and merge the patches, if he
likes them).
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree
2012-07-08 19:14 ` Linus Walleij
@ 2012-07-09 2:04 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2012-07-09 20:34 ` Linus Walleij
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Kuninori Morimoto @ 2012-07-09 2:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Gleixner, Stephen Rothwell, Linus Walleij
Cc: Kuninori Morimoto, linux-kernel, linux-next
Hi Linus Walleij, Stephen, and Thomas
> >> > After merging the gpio-lw tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> >> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> >> >
> >> > ERROR: "irq_set_chip_and_handler_name" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
> >> > ERROR: "dummy_irq_chip" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
> >>
> >> Thanks, I've dropped the offending patch, Kuninori can you look into this and
> >> provide a new patch? It's the second patch from your patch set.
> >
> > OK. I will, but it will be next week.
> > And could you please show me where is your repository/branch ?
>
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git;a=summary
> branch devel/for-next
In my check, these are export symbol issue.
I think above 2 function/struct were not exported for module.
Is it poosible to solve this issue by these patches ?
Kuninori Morimoto (2):
genirq: export irq_set_chip_and_handler_name()
genirq: export dummy_irq_chip
kernel/irq/chip.c | 1 +
kernel/irq/dummychip.c | 2 ++
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree
2012-07-06 8:55 ` Kuninori Morimoto
@ 2012-07-08 19:14 ` Linus Walleij
2012-07-09 2:04 ` Kuninori Morimoto
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2012-07-08 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kuninori Morimoto; +Cc: Stephen Rothwell, linux-next, linux-kernel
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Kuninori Morimoto
<kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Linus
>
>> > After merging the gpio-lw tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
>> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
>> >
>> > ERROR: "irq_set_chip_and_handler_name" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
>> > ERROR: "dummy_irq_chip" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
>>
>> Thanks, I've dropped the offending patch, Kuninori can you look into this and
>> provide a new patch? It's the second patch from your patch set.
>
> OK. I will, but it will be next week.
> And could you please show me where is your repository/branch ?
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/linusw/linux-gpio.git;a=summary
branch devel/for-next
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree
2012-07-06 7:01 ` Linus Walleij
@ 2012-07-06 8:55 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2012-07-08 19:14 ` Linus Walleij
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Kuninori Morimoto @ 2012-07-06 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij; +Cc: Stephen Rothwell, linux-next, linux-kernel
Dear Linus
> > After merging the gpio-lw tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> > allmodconfig) failed like this:
> >
> > ERROR: "irq_set_chip_and_handler_name" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
> > ERROR: "dummy_irq_chip" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
>
> Thanks, I've dropped the offending patch, Kuninori can you look into this and
> provide a new patch? It's the second patch from your patch set.
OK. I will, but it will be next week.
And could you please show me where is your repository/branch ?
Best regards
--
Kuninori Morimoto
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree
2012-07-06 6:14 Stephen Rothwell
@ 2012-07-06 7:01 ` Linus Walleij
2012-07-06 8:55 ` Kuninori Morimoto
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2012-07-06 7:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: linux-next, linux-kernel, Kuninori Morimoto
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> After merging the gpio-lw tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> ERROR: "irq_set_chip_and_handler_name" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
> ERROR: "dummy_irq_chip" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
Thanks, I've dropped the offending patch, Kuninori can you look into this and
provide a new patch? It's the second patch from your patch set.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
* linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree
@ 2012-07-06 6:14 Stephen Rothwell
2012-07-06 7:01 ` Linus Walleij
0 siblings, 1 reply; 23+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2012-07-06 6:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij; +Cc: linux-next, linux-kernel, Kuninori Morimoto
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 381 bytes --]
Hi Linus,
After merging the gpio-lw tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
ERROR: "irq_set_chip_and_handler_name" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
ERROR: "dummy_irq_chip" [drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.ko] undefined!
I have dropped the gpio-lw tree for today.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 23+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-02-13 13:38 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-01-18 3:03 linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree Stephen Rothwell
2013-01-18 7:57 ` [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB Shawn Guo
2013-01-18 22:33 ` Linus Walleij
2013-02-10 4:46 ` Max Filippov
2013-02-11 14:13 ` Linus Walleij
2013-02-11 16:50 ` Max Filippov
2013-02-12 12:35 ` Linus Walleij
2013-02-11 20:23 ` Stephen Rothwell
2013-02-13 13:37 ` Shawn Guo
2013-01-18 8:02 ` linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree Shawn Guo
2013-01-18 23:40 ` Stephen Rothwell
2013-01-21 6:20 ` Shawn Guo
2013-01-21 5:53 ` Stephen Rothwell
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-07-06 6:14 Stephen Rothwell
2012-07-06 7:01 ` Linus Walleij
2012-07-06 8:55 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2012-07-08 19:14 ` Linus Walleij
2012-07-09 2:04 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2012-07-09 20:34 ` Linus Walleij
2012-07-24 3:56 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2012-08-22 5:03 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2012-08-23 21:43 ` Linus Walleij
2012-08-27 1:16 ` Kuninori Morimoto
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).