From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andres Salomon Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for October 1 (staging/olpc_dcon) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:33:02 -0700 Message-ID: <20101005123302.399b258f@debxo> References: <20101001153756.47b52566.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20101001154531.997630a2.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20101001192454.0a427cb0@debxo> <20101002185154.GA18020@suse.de> <20101002180334.7894bdfe@debxo> <20101005190818.GD20825@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from LUNGE.MIT.EDU ([18.54.1.69]:52723 "EHLO lunge.queued.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753133Ab0JET02 (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:26:28 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20101005190818.GD20825@kroah.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Greg KH Cc: Greg KH , Randy Dunlap , Stephen Rothwell , driverdevel , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Chris Ball , Jon Nettleton On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 12:08:18 -0700 Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 06:03:34PM -0700, Andres Salomon wrote: > > On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 11:51:54 -0700 > > Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 01, 2010 at 07:24:54PM -0700, Andres Salomon wrote: > > > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 15:45:31 -0700 > > > > Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 15:37:56 +1000 Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes since 20100930: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > drivers/staging/olpc_dcon/olpc_dcon_xo_1.c:57: error: implicit > > > > > declaration of function 'geode_gpio_event_irq' > > > > > drivers/staging/olpc_dcon/olpc_dcon_xo_1.c:57: error: implicit > > > > > declaration of function 'geode_gpio' > > > > > > > > Yep, it's pending a cs5535-gpio patch > > > > (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/209482/). > > > > > > Wait, as I didn't apply the later patches, what I did apply should > > > have still built properly (remember our rule, no breakage at any > > > point in a patch series.) So, should I revert the last olpc patch > > > that caused this problem? > > > > > > > Sorry, I thought that was made clear by the "this patch is necessary > > for building the driver" comments in each patch description. The > > original driver that was submitted doesn't build unless all patches > > are applied (the only which touches external APIs is the pending > > cs5535-gpio one). > > Ok, I'll go mark the driver as depending on CONFIG_BROKEN for now, > until we get that resolved, as we can't have a driver that breaks the > build in the tree. > > thanks, > > greg k-h Sounds good. After the two outstanding patches are applied, CONFIG_BROKEN can be safely removed.