[PATCH resend 1/5] spi: bcm2835: Add GPIOLIB dependency

[PATCH resend 1/5] spi: bcm2835: Add GPIOLIB dependency

[Guenter Roeck]

Fix:

drivers/spi/spi-bcm2835.c: In function 'chip_match_name':
drivers/spi/spi-bcm2835.c:356:21: error:
			dereferencing pointer to incomplete type
drivers/spi/spi-bcm2835.c: In function 'bcm2835_spi_setup':
drivers/spi/spi-bcm2835.c:382:2: error:
	`		implicit declaration of function 'gpiochip_find'
drivers/spi/spi-bcm2835.c:387:21: error:
			dereferencing pointer to incomplete type

by adding the now mandatory GPIOLIB dependency.

Fixes: a30a555d7435 ("spi: bcm2835: transform native-cs to gpio-cs
	on first spi_setup")
Cc: Martin Sperl <kernel@martin.sperl.org>
Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
---
Yes, I know, this patch is in -next. Please see this e-mail as gentle reminder
to consider pushing it (or one of the other patches fixing the same problem)
into mainline. 

 drivers/spi/Kconfig | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/spi/Kconfig b/drivers/spi/Kconfig
index 198f96b7fb45..a132180a9251 100644
--- a/drivers/spi/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/spi/Kconfig
@@ -78,6 +78,7 @@ config SPI_ATMEL
 config SPI_BCM2835
 	tristate "BCM2835 SPI controller"
 	depends on ARCH_BCM2835 || COMPILE_TEST
+	depends on GPIOLIB
 	help
 	  This selects a driver for the Broadcom BCM2835 SPI master.
 
-- 
2.1.0

Re: [PATCH resend 1/5] spi: bcm2835: Add GPIOLIB dependency

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 227 bytes --]

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 03:30:45PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Fix:
> 
> drivers/spi/spi-bcm2835.c: In function 'chip_match_name':
> drivers/spi/spi-bcm2835.c:356:21: error:

This duplicates a patch someone else sent.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH resend 1/5] spi: bcm2835: Add GPIOLIB dependency

[Guenter Roeck]

On 05/04/2015 04:34 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 03:30:45PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Fix:
>>
>> drivers/spi/spi-bcm2835.c: In function 'chip_match_name':
>> drivers/spi/spi-bcm2835.c:356:21: error:
>
> This duplicates a patch someone else sent.
>

Hi Mark,

not that it matters, but this is the patch in linux-next.

I am aware that several other patches have been submitted to fix the
problem (I think I have seen at least two); after all, I submitted the
patch some three weeks ago, and many others are affected by it. I don't
really care which one of the submitted patches is applied to mainline,
as long as the problem is getting fixed.

Repeating my comment from the patch,

"Yes, I know, this patch is in -next. Please see this e-mail as gentle reminder
to consider pushing it (or one of the other patches fixing the same problem)
into mainline."

Thanks,
Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH resend 1/5] spi: bcm2835: Add GPIOLIB dependency

[Guenter Roeck]

On 05/04/2015 05:02 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 05/04/2015 04:34 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 03:30:45PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> Fix:
>>>
>>> drivers/spi/spi-bcm2835.c: In function 'chip_match_name':
>>> drivers/spi/spi-bcm2835.c:356:21: error:
>>
>> This duplicates a patch someone else sent.
>>
>
> Hi Mark,
>
> not that it matters, but this is the patch in linux-next.
>
> I am aware that several other patches have been submitted to fix the
> problem (I think I have seen at least two); after all, I submitted the
> patch some three weeks ago, and many others are affected by it. I don't
> really care which one of the submitted patches is applied to mainline,
> as long as the problem is getting fixed.
>
> Repeating my comment from the patch,
>
> "Yes, I know, this patch is in -next. Please see this e-mail as gentle reminder
> to consider pushing it (or one of the other patches fixing the same problem)
> into mainline."
>

Follow-up: Since you accepted one of the other patches, please make sure
to remove my patch from your -next branch; otherwise we might end up
with dual "depends on GPIOLIB".

Thanks,
Guenter

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH resend 1/5] spi: bcm2835: Add GPIOLIB dependency

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 674 bytes --]

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 07:00:55PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 05/04/2015 05:02 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:

> >not that it matters, but this is the patch in linux-next.

> >I am aware that several other patches have been submitted to fix the
> >problem (I think I have seen at least two); after all, I submitted the

> Follow-up: Since you accepted one of the other patches, please make sure
> to remove my patch from your -next branch; otherwise we might end up
> with dual "depends on GPIOLIB".

*sigh*  So, what you're asking me to do here is remove the one that's
actually been applied as a bugfix for Linus.  Are you *sure* that's what
you think that's a good idea?

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH resend 1/5] spi: bcm2835: Add GPIOLIB dependency

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Mark,

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Mark Brown <broonie-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 07:00:55PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 05/04/2015 05:02 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
>> >not that it matters, but this is the patch in linux-next.
>
>> >I am aware that several other patches have been submitted to fix the
>> >problem (I think I have seen at least two); after all, I submitted the
>
>> Follow-up: Since you accepted one of the other patches, please make sure
>> to remove my patch from your -next branch; otherwise we might end up
>> with dual "depends on GPIOLIB".
>
> *sigh*  So, what you're asking me to do here is remove the one that's
> actually been applied as a bugfix for Linus.  Are you *sure* that's what
> you think that's a good idea?

spi.git/for-next now has two fixes for the same issue, from him (April 13),
and from Sato-san (May 4):
  - 8844d0f1cb921f70c ("spi: bcm2835: Add GPIOLIB dependency")
  - e0d58cdcaedd90e4 ("spi: bcm2835: depends GPIOLIB")

Git merged them "nicely" when you merged 'spi/topic/bcm2835' into
'spi-next', leading to this chunk in drivers/spi/Kconfig:

    config SPI_BCM2835
            tristate "BCM2835 SPI controller"
            depends on GPIOLIB
            depends on ARCH_BCM2835 || COMPILE_TEST
            depends on GPIOLIB

I think Günter wants you to keep only the commit you will send to Linus
for v4.1-rc3, and remove the other commit.

Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH resend 1/5] spi: bcm2835: Add GPIOLIB dependency

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 305 bytes --]

On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 01:32:12PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

> I think Günter wants you to keep only the commit you will send to Linus
> for v4.1-rc3, and remove the other commit.

Yes, I know that's the *sensible* thing to do (hence why I was asking if
he really meant what he asked for).

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH resend 1/5] spi: bcm2835: Add GPIOLIB dependency

[Mark Brown]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 821 bytes --]

On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:02:28PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:

> I am aware that several other patches have been submitted to fix the
> problem (I think I have seen at least two); after all, I submitted the
> patch some three weeks ago, and many others are affected by it. I don't
> really care which one of the submitted patches is applied to mainline,
> as long as the problem is getting fixed.

So, the way to do this is to follow up on one of the existing patches.

> Repeating my comment from the patch,

> "Yes, I know, this patch is in -next. Please see this e-mail as gentle reminder
> to consider pushing it (or one of the other patches fixing the same problem)
> into mainline."

Why would I even read that far into the patch?  It's patch 1 of a
series, it looks like someone's just blindly sending old stuff.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]