linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- 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 --]

[PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB

[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

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

[Shawn Guo]

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").

Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB

[Linus Walleij]

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

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- 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 --]

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- 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 --]

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

[Shawn Guo]

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

Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB

[Max Filippov]

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

Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB

[Linus Walleij]

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

Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB

[Max Filippov]

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

Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- 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 --]

Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB

[Linus Walleij]

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

Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: devm_gpio_* support should not depend on GPIOLIB

[Shawn Guo]

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
 

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

[Kuninori Morimoto]

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

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

[Linus Walleij]

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

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

[Kuninori Morimoto]

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

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

[Kuninori Morimoto]

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

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

[Linus Walleij]

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

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

[Kuninori Morimoto]

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

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

[Linus Walleij]

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

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

[Kuninori Morimoto]

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
 

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

[Linus Walleij]

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

linux-next: build failure after merge of the gpio-lw tree

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- 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 --]