From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (pwm tree related) Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:12:32 +0000 Message-ID: <201206302012.32476.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org> References: <20120629174826.546cc991459b12833f2aaebd@canb.auug.org.au> <201206301920.21158.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org> <20120630194139.GA24300@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:51728 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751158Ab2F3UMn (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:12:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120630194139.GA24300@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Thierry Reding Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sascha Hauer On Saturday 30 June 2012, Thierry Reding wrote: > > I think that all the drivers that are not converted to the common PWM > > layer yet should depend on not enabling the common code. Once they > > are all moved over, that dependency will go away. > > Right. That's exactly what I meant. If we add depends on !HAVE_PWM to > the PWM symbol that should result in both options conflicting, and > therefore not being built at the same time. But I would add it to all other ones then, not the generic one! One question though: if the generic pwm implementation does not set HAVE_PWM, how can a driver check its presence? Arnd