From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mika Westerberg Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] i2c / ACPI: add ACPI enumeration support Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 12:50:07 +0200 Message-ID: <20121104105007.GS16648@intel.com> References: <1351928793-14375-1-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <1351928793-14375-4-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> <20121103225246.66d4f094@endymion.delvare> <20121104072316.GR16648@intel.com> <20121104095031.5e6465ae@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:49090 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751154Ab2KDKrw (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Nov 2012 05:47:52 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121104095031.5e6465ae@endymion.delvare> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, linus.walleij@linaro.org, ben-linux@fluff.org, w.sang@pengutronix.de, mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 09:50:31AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Sun, 4 Nov 2012 09:23:17 +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 10:52:46PM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 09:46:33 +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_i2c.c > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,234 @@ > > > > +/* > > > > + * ACPI I2C enumeration support > > > > + * > > > > + * Copyright (C) 2012, Intel Corporation > > > > + * Author: Mika Westerberg > > > > + * > > > > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > > > > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as > > > > + * published by the Free Software Foundation. > > > > + */ > > > > + > > > > +#include > > > > +#include > > > > +#include > > > > > > You also need for dev_err() etc., and for > > > ENODEV etc. > > > > I think already includes but I'll double check. At > > least this compiles without those headers in place :) > > That's not really the point. You never know which header inclusions > will be removed from other header files in the future, so you should > include what you need explicitly. This avoids future build breakages as > well as build breakages on other architectures. Right. I've actually seen this problem few times before. I added the inclusion of and to the file. Thanks.