From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Jarzmik Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: fix three implicit module use cases fed via gpio Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 10:09:20 +0200 Message-ID: <8737n022tr.fsf@belgarion.home> References: <20160720041332.30789-1-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from smtp11.smtpout.orange.fr ([80.12.242.133]:50248 "EHLO smtp.smtpout.orange.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751328AbcGWIJ0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jul 2016 04:09:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160720041332.30789-1-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> (Paul Gortmaker's message of "Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:13:29 -0400") Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Paul Gortmaker , Tony Lindgren Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alexandre Courbot , Daniel Mack , Haojian Zhuang , Linus Walleij , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Russell King Paul Gortmaker writes: > While working on some for-4.9 cleanups of linux/gpio/driver.h it was > found that changes there caused build failures when walking all the > ARM defconfigs, in ARM specific mach-* files. > > The proposed GPIO header change is just this: > > --------------------------------------- > --- a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h > +++ b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h > @@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ > > #include > #include > -#include > #include > #include > #include > @@ -16,6 +15,7 @@ struct of_phandle_args; > struct device_node; > struct seq_file; > struct gpio_device; > +struct module; > > #ifdef CONFIG_GPIOLIB > --------------------------------------- > > ...which is what we've already got in ~50 other include/linux/* files to > try and keep cross contamination entanglement at a minimum. > > So we uncovered three users in ARM specific files relying on the above > presence in this header, vs. dealing with it within the driver itself. > > But with ARM and GPIO being different subsystems, we'll need to get > this in ARM 1st, and then wait a release before changing the GPIO > header, otherwise we'll risk triggering these three build failures. > > So, if folks consider these three trivial changes OK for late in the > for-4.8 cycle, then great. Otherwise I'll resubmit the ARM parts for > for-4.9 and the GPIO bits for the one after that. > > [Yes, there were gpio implicit users too, but they are easily sync'd > with the gpio header change being at the end of that series.] > > Paul. > -- > > Cc: Alexandre Courbot > Cc: Daniel Mack > Cc: Haojian Zhuang > Cc: Linus Walleij > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Robert Jarzmik > Cc: Russell King > Cc: Tony Lindgren > > Paul Gortmaker (3): > ARM: mach-omap2: remove bogus "or_module" from rx51-peripherals > ARM: pxa: add module.h for corgi symbol_get/symbol_put usage > ARM: pxa: add module.h for spitz symbol_get/symbol_put usage > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-peripherals.c | 2 +- > arch/arm/mach-pxa/corgi.c | 1 + > arch/arm/mach-pxa/spitz.c | 1 + > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Hi Paul, I'll take the mach-pxa changes to pxa/for-next tree with Linus's ack. Tony, I think you will carry the remaining omap2 one, right ? As for the cycle, I'd prefer have it for-4.9 as we're at rc7 and it's a bit late for me. If you want your GPIO bits to get in 4.9 I think I can commit to request pull very early (-rc1 time) or give my ack so that Linus can carry these changes through the gpio tree with the other changes. Cheers. -- Robert From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robert.jarzmik@free.fr (Robert Jarzmik) Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 10:09:20 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: fix three implicit module use cases fed via gpio In-Reply-To: <20160720041332.30789-1-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> (Paul Gortmaker's message of "Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:13:29 -0400") References: <20160720041332.30789-1-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> Message-ID: <8737n022tr.fsf@belgarion.home> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Paul Gortmaker writes: > While working on some for-4.9 cleanups of linux/gpio/driver.h it was > found that changes there caused build failures when walking all the > ARM defconfigs, in ARM specific mach-* files. > > The proposed GPIO header change is just this: > > --------------------------------------- > --- a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h > +++ b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h > @@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ > > #include > #include > -#include > #include > #include > #include > @@ -16,6 +15,7 @@ struct of_phandle_args; > struct device_node; > struct seq_file; > struct gpio_device; > +struct module; > > #ifdef CONFIG_GPIOLIB > --------------------------------------- > > ...which is what we've already got in ~50 other include/linux/* files to > try and keep cross contamination entanglement at a minimum. > > So we uncovered three users in ARM specific files relying on the above > presence in this header, vs. dealing with it within the driver itself. > > But with ARM and GPIO being different subsystems, we'll need to get > this in ARM 1st, and then wait a release before changing the GPIO > header, otherwise we'll risk triggering these three build failures. > > So, if folks consider these three trivial changes OK for late in the > for-4.8 cycle, then great. Otherwise I'll resubmit the ARM parts for > for-4.9 and the GPIO bits for the one after that. > > [Yes, there were gpio implicit users too, but they are easily sync'd > with the gpio header change being at the end of that series.] > > Paul. > -- > > Cc: Alexandre Courbot > Cc: Daniel Mack > Cc: Haojian Zhuang > Cc: Linus Walleij > Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > Cc: linux-gpio at vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-omap at vger.kernel.org > Cc: Robert Jarzmik > Cc: Russell King > Cc: Tony Lindgren > > Paul Gortmaker (3): > ARM: mach-omap2: remove bogus "or_module" from rx51-peripherals > ARM: pxa: add module.h for corgi symbol_get/symbol_put usage > ARM: pxa: add module.h for spitz symbol_get/symbol_put usage > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-peripherals.c | 2 +- > arch/arm/mach-pxa/corgi.c | 1 + > arch/arm/mach-pxa/spitz.c | 1 + > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Hi Paul, I'll take the mach-pxa changes to pxa/for-next tree with Linus's ack. Tony, I think you will carry the remaining omap2 one, right ? As for the cycle, I'd prefer have it for-4.9 as we're at rc7 and it's a bit late for me. If you want your GPIO bits to get in 4.9 I think I can commit to request pull very early (-rc1 time) or give my ack so that Linus can carry these changes through the gpio tree with the other changes. Cheers. -- Robert From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751499AbcGWIJz (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jul 2016 04:09:55 -0400 Received: from smtp11.smtpout.orange.fr ([80.12.242.133]:47097 "EHLO smtp.smtpout.orange.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751329AbcGWIJ1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jul 2016 04:09:27 -0400 X-ME-Helo: belgarion X-ME-Auth: amFyem1pay5yb2JlcnRAb3JhbmdlLmZy X-ME-Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 10:09:24 +0200 X-ME-IP: 86.199.67.224 From: Robert Jarzmik To: Paul Gortmaker , Tony Lindgren Cc: , Alexandre Courbot , Daniel Mack , Haojian Zhuang , Linus Walleij , , , , Russell King Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ARM: fix three implicit module use cases fed via gpio References: <20160720041332.30789-1-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> X-URL: http://belgarath.falguerolles.org/ Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2016 10:09:20 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20160720041332.30789-1-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> (Paul Gortmaker's message of "Wed, 20 Jul 2016 00:13:29 -0400") Message-ID: <8737n022tr.fsf@belgarion.home> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Paul Gortmaker writes: > While working on some for-4.9 cleanups of linux/gpio/driver.h it was > found that changes there caused build failures when walking all the > ARM defconfigs, in ARM specific mach-* files. > > The proposed GPIO header change is just this: > > --------------------------------------- > --- a/include/linux/gpio/driver.h > +++ b/include/linux/gpio/driver.h > @@ -3,7 +3,6 @@ > > #include > #include > -#include > #include > #include > #include > @@ -16,6 +15,7 @@ struct of_phandle_args; > struct device_node; > struct seq_file; > struct gpio_device; > +struct module; > > #ifdef CONFIG_GPIOLIB > --------------------------------------- > > ...which is what we've already got in ~50 other include/linux/* files to > try and keep cross contamination entanglement at a minimum. > > So we uncovered three users in ARM specific files relying on the above > presence in this header, vs. dealing with it within the driver itself. > > But with ARM and GPIO being different subsystems, we'll need to get > this in ARM 1st, and then wait a release before changing the GPIO > header, otherwise we'll risk triggering these three build failures. > > So, if folks consider these three trivial changes OK for late in the > for-4.8 cycle, then great. Otherwise I'll resubmit the ARM parts for > for-4.9 and the GPIO bits for the one after that. > > [Yes, there were gpio implicit users too, but they are easily sync'd > with the gpio header change being at the end of that series.] > > Paul. > -- > > Cc: Alexandre Courbot > Cc: Daniel Mack > Cc: Haojian Zhuang > Cc: Linus Walleij > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org > Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Robert Jarzmik > Cc: Russell King > Cc: Tony Lindgren > > Paul Gortmaker (3): > ARM: mach-omap2: remove bogus "or_module" from rx51-peripherals > ARM: pxa: add module.h for corgi symbol_get/symbol_put usage > ARM: pxa: add module.h for spitz symbol_get/symbol_put usage > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-peripherals.c | 2 +- > arch/arm/mach-pxa/corgi.c | 1 + > arch/arm/mach-pxa/spitz.c | 1 + > 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) Hi Paul, I'll take the mach-pxa changes to pxa/for-next tree with Linus's ack. Tony, I think you will carry the remaining omap2 one, right ? As for the cycle, I'd prefer have it for-4.9 as we're at rc7 and it's a bit late for me. If you want your GPIO bits to get in 4.9 I think I can commit to request pull very early (-rc1 time) or give my ack so that Linus can carry these changes through the gpio tree with the other changes. Cheers. -- Robert