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: Tue, 3 Jul 2012 11:06:42 +0000 Message-ID: <201207031106.42915.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org> References: <20120629174826.546cc991459b12833f2aaebd@canb.auug.org.au> <201207030859.11975.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org> <20120703100049.GA8455@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 ([212.227.17.8]:63095 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756324Ab2GCLGv (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jul 2012 07:06:51 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120703100049.GA8455@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 Tuesday 03 July 2012, Thierry Reding wrote: > Show Details > On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 08:59:11AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tuesday 03 July 2012, Thierry Reding wrote: > > > I came up with the attached patch. What do you think? It fixes the > > > PowerPC allyesconfig issue for me. > > > > This one looks correct, but I would still do it the other way around, > > putting the depends statements into the locations of the other drivers. > > The main difference is that we can then independently convert the > > remaining drivers, without having merge conflicts in the same line > > every time we remove one of the dependencies. > > The downside of that approach, however, is to make PWM override other > settings. For instance if you have TWL6030_PWM selected and then decide > to also select PWM, then the former will be automatically deselected to > satisfy the dependency. I'm not sure if that's desired. It's true that this may be confusing, but I think it's the right approach for future multiplatform kernels. If we have e.g. a combined omap+ux500+imx kernel, we can only have one implementation of the PWM interfaces, and that should be the new one. It's less clear for the other architectures. Maybe a mixed approach is better there, making CONFIG_PWM depend on !MACH_JZ4740 && !PUV3_NB0916 && !BLACKFIN, but letting the remaining ARM versions of the PWM code depend on !PWM. Arnd