From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpufreq, powernv: Fix build failure on UP Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 11:31:02 +0530 Message-ID: <534E1C9E.3090802@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20140415141111.GA28352@windriver.com> <534E199D.2090504@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: cpufreq-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Paul Gortmaker , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com" , Vaidyanathan Srinivasan , Preeti U Murthy , linux-next list , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , cpufreq , Linux PM mailing list , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On 04/16/2014 11:25 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 16 April 2014 11:18, Srivatsa S. Bhat > wrote: >> From: Srivatsa S. Bhat >> Subject: [PATCH] cpufreq, powernv: Fix build failure on UP >> >> Paul Gortmaker reported the following build failure of the powernv cpufreq >> driver on UP configs: >> >> drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c:241:2: error: implicit declaration of >> function 'cpu_sibling_mask' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >> cc1: some warnings being treated as errors >> make[3]: *** [drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.o] Error 1 >> make[2]: *** [drivers/cpufreq] Error 2 >> make[1]: *** [drivers] Error 2 >> make: *** [sub-make] Error 2 >> >> The trouble here is that cpu_sibling_mask is defined only in , and >> includes only in SMP builds. >> >> So fix this build failure by explicitly including in the driver, >> so that we get the definition of cpu_sibling_mask even in UP configurations. >> >> Reported-by: Paul Gortmaker >> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat >> --- >> >> drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c >> index 9edccc6..ed1c7e5 100644 >> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c >> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/powernv-cpufreq.c >> @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ >> >> #include >> #include > > Probably a comment here ?, so that people don't try to remove it in future. > Sure, that sounds like a good idea. > /* Required for cpu_sibling_mask() in UP configurations */ > >> +#include >> >> #define POWERNV_MAX_PSTATES 256 > > Acked-by: Viresh Kumar Thank you! Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat