From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ian Subject: Re: linux-next: mfd tree build failure Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:03:14 +0100 Message-ID: <1217941394.18866.19.camel@wirenth> References: <20080805150947.ee63424a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mk-outboundfilter-5.mail.uk.tiscali.com ([212.74.114.1]:11203 "EHLO mk-outboundfilter-5.mail.uk.tiscali.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761265AbYHENDc (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:03:32 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080805150947.ee63424a.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: Samuel Ortiz , linux-next@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 15:09 +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > I reverted commit 4d6da2de1b09228989efb67a1f9e6d2ced075540 ("mfd: > driver for the TMIO NAND controller") until it has tighter controls in > its Kconfig patch. i.e. I have no idea what arches this should be > built on. Since there is no way to know wether an arch has readsw() and friends at config time, I'd propose that bot the TMIO NAND and MMC drivers be built only on ARM for now. If anyone every uses them on another platform, they can add the support. Should I redo the two drivers patchsets, or would you prefer a patch fixing this after the fact?