From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: linux-next: i2c build failure Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 18:58:09 -0700 Message-ID: <20080523015809.GA16743@kroah.com> References: <20080523113255.258e38bd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:56959 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758109AbYEWB7S (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 May 2008 21:59:18 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080523113255.258e38bd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Jean Delvare , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Dave Young , Kay Sievers On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:32:55AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Jean, > > Today's linux-next build (powerpc ppc64_defconfig) failed like this: > > drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c: In function 'i2c_register_driver': > drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c:697: warning: passing argument 2 of 'class_for_each_device' from incompatible pointer type > drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c:697: error: too few arguments to function 'class_for_each_device' > drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c: In function 'i2c_del_driver': > drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c:749: warning: passing argument 2 of 'class_for_each_device' from incompatible pointer type > drivers/i2c/i2c-core.c:749: error: too few arguments to function 'class_for_each_device' > > This is caused by commit f79228aaa062668bcbabf9762e819a1d7ee7c5c4 ("i2c: > Use class_for_each_device") from the i2c tree interacting with commit > a3ec024649e0095368d38a2e434ad092b79aa7af ("Driver Core: add ability for > class_for_each_device to start in middle of list") from the driver-core > tree. The latter added a parameter to class_for_each_device while the > former added a new usage. > > I applied the patch below. The patch looks correct, thanks. > Greg, is there some better way to handle this interface change? (e.g. new > function name?) There's only what, 5 users in the kernel for it today in 3 different files? I'd rather not go through that kind of sequence, can you just keep this patch and we'll handle it when we merge together once .27 opens. Sound reasonable? thanks, greg k-h