From: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Maling List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@st.com>,
Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@redhat.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@st.com>,
Giuseppe Cavallaro <peppe.cavallaro@st.com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org>,
Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk.h: Fix shim ifdef guard (HAVE_CLK -> COMMON_CLK)
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 19:52:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120827185248.GE25321@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <503B920F.30509@suse.com>
On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:28:15AM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> Commit 93abe8e4 (clk: add non HAVE_CLK routines) added shims for
> the clk code but HAVE_CLK isn't enough. It's possible to have the
> clk support but not enable it. We end up with full prototypes for code
> that is never built - causing module linking to fail later.
>
> This patch changes the guard to use COMMON_CLK, which actually guards
> the code.
This is wrong. COMMON_CLK is an _implementation_ of the CLK API. It
is not the only implementation in the kernel. Conditionalizing like
this breaks existing users.
HAVE_CLK is the right thing here - if you define HAVE_CLK then you _are_
providing an implementation of clk_get() et.al. If you're not, then you
do not define HAVE_CLK. Simples.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-27 18:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-27 15:28 [PATCH] clk.h: Fix shim ifdef guard (HAVE_CLK -> COMMON_CLK) Jeff Mahoney
2012-08-27 18:52 ` Russell King [this message]
2012-08-27 20:53 ` Jeff Mahoney
2012-08-28 0:51 ` Russell King
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-08-27 15:54 Jeff Mahoney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120827185248.GE25321@flint.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=andrew@lunn.ch \
--cc=bhupesh.sharma@st.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jeffm@suse.com \
--cc=jgarzik@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mturquette@linaro.org \
--cc=peppe.cavallaro@st.com \
--cc=sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com \
--cc=viresh.kumar@st.com \
--cc=w.sang@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.