From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexandre Belloni Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] rtc: generic: follow up for COMPILE_TEST Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:41:07 +0100 Message-ID: <20160310044107.GD9868@piout.net> References: <1456851608-3374907-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Kyle McMartin , rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, Alessandro Zummo , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org To: Arnd Bergmann Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1456851608-3374907-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> List-ID: List-Id: linux-parisc.vger.kernel.org Hi, On 01/03/2016 at 17:59:56 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote : > Today's linux-next kernel allowed building the rtc-generic > driver (and most other rtc drivers) on all architectures, > but this caused some errors on architectures without asm/rtc.h. > > This series reworks that driver to avoid the dependency, > and simplifies all four implementations. My first approach > was to split the driver into four separate drivers, but > that didn't feel right when three of them have their own > multiplexors. > > The first five patches can be applied independent of one other, > while patch 6 is optional and can be applied when all others > are merged. Alternatively, they can all go in through the > rtc tree. I compile-tested only the powerpc and sh targets for > which I happened to have cross-compilers installed. > I like this approach. Maybe you can also remove the now unnecessary definitions from the various asm/rtc.h. I have a small nitpick on the parisc patch. I'll take the first patch, no need to resend that one. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.free-electrons.com (down.free-electrons.com. [37.187.137.238]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id z75si66941wmz.2.2016.03.09.20.41.10 for ; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 20:41:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:41:07 +0100 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Kyle McMartin , rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, Alessandro Zummo , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org Subject: [rtc-linux] Re: [PATCH 0/6] rtc: generic: follow up for COMPILE_TEST Message-ID: <20160310044107.GD9868@piout.net> References: <1456851608-3374907-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 In-Reply-To: <1456851608-3374907-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> Reply-To: rtc-linux@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , Hi, On 01/03/2016 at 17:59:56 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote : > Today's linux-next kernel allowed building the rtc-generic > driver (and most other rtc drivers) on all architectures, > but this caused some errors on architectures without asm/rtc.h. > > This series reworks that driver to avoid the dependency, > and simplifies all four implementations. My first approach > was to split the driver into four separate drivers, but > that didn't feel right when three of them have their own > multiplexors. > > The first five patches can be applied independent of one other, > while patch 6 is optional and can be applied when all others > are merged. Alternatively, they can all go in through the > rtc tree. I compile-tested only the powerpc and sh targets for > which I happened to have cross-compilers installed. > I like this approach. Maybe you can also remove the now unnecessary definitions from the various asm/rtc.h. I have a small nitpick on the parisc patch. I'll take the first patch, no need to resend that one. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to "rtc-linux". Membership options at http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux . Please read http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/web/checklist before submitting a driver. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rtc-linux" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rtc-linux+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexandre Belloni Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 04:41:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] rtc: generic: follow up for COMPILE_TEST Message-Id: <20160310044107.GD9868@piout.net> List-Id: References: <1456851608-3374907-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <1456851608-3374907-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Hi, On 01/03/2016 at 17:59:56 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote : > Today's linux-next kernel allowed building the rtc-generic > driver (and most other rtc drivers) on all architectures, > but this caused some errors on architectures without asm/rtc.h. > > This series reworks that driver to avoid the dependency, > and simplifies all four implementations. My first approach > was to split the driver into four separate drivers, but > that didn't feel right when three of them have their own > multiplexors. > > The first five patches can be applied independent of one other, > while patch 6 is optional and can be applied when all others > are merged. Alternatively, they can all go in through the > rtc tree. I compile-tested only the powerpc and sh targets for > which I happened to have cross-compilers installed. > I like this approach. Maybe you can also remove the now unnecessary definitions from the various asm/rtc.h. I have a small nitpick on the parisc patch. I'll take the first patch, no need to resend that one. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com (Alexandre Belloni) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:41:07 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 0/6] rtc: generic: follow up for COMPILE_TEST In-Reply-To: <1456851608-3374907-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> References: <1456851608-3374907-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20160310044107.GD9868@piout.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On 01/03/2016 at 17:59:56 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote : > Today's linux-next kernel allowed building the rtc-generic > driver (and most other rtc drivers) on all architectures, > but this caused some errors on architectures without asm/rtc.h. > > This series reworks that driver to avoid the dependency, > and simplifies all four implementations. My first approach > was to split the driver into four separate drivers, but > that didn't feel right when three of them have their own > multiplexors. > > The first five patches can be applied independent of one other, > while patch 6 is optional and can be applied when all others > are merged. Alternatively, they can all go in through the > rtc tree. I compile-tested only the powerpc and sh targets for > which I happened to have cross-compilers installed. > I like this approach. Maybe you can also remove the now unnecessary definitions from the various asm/rtc.h. I have a small nitpick on the parisc patch. I'll take the first patch, no need to resend that one. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com