From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] ASoC: jz4740: Remove Makefile entry for removed file Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 20:25:40 +0200 Message-ID: <20150403182540.GA12460@kroah.com> References: <1398199596-23649-1-git-send-email-lars@metafoo.de> <5515363F.1050209@imgtec.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5515363F.1050209@imgtec.com> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Markos Chandras Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen , Mark Brown , Liam Girdwood , Ralf Baechle , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, stable List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:51:43AM +0000, Markos Chandras wrote: > On 04/22/2014 09:46 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > > Commit 0406a40a0 ("ASoC: jz4740: Use the generic dmaengine PCM driver") > > jz4740-pcm.c file, but neglected to remove the Makefile entries. > > > > Fixes: 0406a40a0 ("ASoC: jz4740: Use the generic dmaengine PCM driver") > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot > > Reported-by: Ralf Baechle > > Signed-off-by: Lars-Peter Clausen > > --- > > sound/soc/jz4740/Makefile | 2 -- > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/sound/soc/jz4740/Makefile b/sound/soc/jz4740/Makefile > > index be873c1..d32c540 100644 > > --- a/sound/soc/jz4740/Makefile > > +++ b/sound/soc/jz4740/Makefile > > @@ -1,10 +1,8 @@ > > # > > # Jz4740 Platform Support > > # > > -snd-soc-jz4740-objs := jz4740-pcm.o > > snd-soc-jz4740-i2s-objs := jz4740-i2s.o > > > > -obj-$(CONFIG_SND_JZ4740_SOC) += snd-soc-jz4740.o > > obj-$(CONFIG_SND_JZ4740_SOC_I2S) += snd-soc-jz4740-i2s.o > > > > # Jz4740 Machine Support > > > Hi, > > This patch (eebdec044e82) is present in 3.15-rc1 but the build failure > that was introduced by 0406a40a0 ("ASoC: jz4740: Use the generic > dmaengine PCM driver") is present in 3.14-rc1 so 3.14 is still broken. > > Greg, would it be possible to cherry pick eebdec044e82 ("ASoC: jz4740: > Remove Makefile entry for removed file") to 3.14 stable branch? It seems > to apply without conflicts. Now applied, thanks. greg k-h