From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com (Nicolas Ferre)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:40:27 +0200
Subject: linux-next build error (at91) - use of bool in mach/arch.h
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1304301257200.5398@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
References: <517F8FF4.3050901@atmel.com>
 <CAMuHMdXYaDHYq7CG8ftP+yyF18pMx8qZrvM3AUTAXk+tUruNcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1304301257200.5398@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
Message-ID: <517FBBBB.6060003@atmel.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 04/30/2013 01:58 PM, Stefano Stabellini :
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote:
>>> So, I am wondering if the best correction is to add the types.h header file
>>> in the asm/mach/arch.h file, like this:
>>>
>>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
>>> @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@
>>>   * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>>>   */
>>>
>>> +#include <linux/types.h>
>>> +
>>>  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>>
>>>  struct tag;
>>>
>>> or if a better option would be to re-arrange the include directives in
>>> various at91xxx_devices.c files?
>>
>> Include files should be self-contained, so asm/mach/arch.h is the right place.
> 
> Nicolas,
> are you happy to come up with a proper patch to fix the issue?

Yep, sent now.

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre