From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.active-venture.com ([67.228.131.205]:58015 "EHLO mail.active-venture.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759688Ab3DJNlt (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:41:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 06:41:56 -0700 From: Guenter Roeck To: Nicolas Ferre Cc: wim@iguana.be, manabian@gmail.com, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] watchdog: Revert the AT91RM9200_WATCHDOG dependency Message-ID: <20130410134156.GA15456@roeck-us.net> References: <20130409202711.GG7867@spo001.leaseweb.com> <1365597382-15455-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> <20130410133351.GA7295@roeck-us.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130410133351.GA7295@roeck-us.net> Sender: linux-watchdog-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 06:33:51AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 02:36:22PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > > Compiling the at91rm9200_wdt.c driver without at91rm9200 > > support was leading to several errors: > > > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `at91_wdt_close': > > at91_adc.c:(.text+0xc9fe4): undefined reference to `at91_st_base' > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `at91_wdt_write': > > at91_adc.c:(.text+0xca004): undefined reference to `at91_st_base' > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `at91wdt_shutdown': > > at91_adc.c:(.text+0xca01c): undefined reference to `at91_st_base' > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `at91wdt_suspend': > > at91_adc.c:(.text+0xca038): undefined reference to `at91_st_base' > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `at91_wdt_open': > > at91_adc.c:(.text+0xca0cc): undefined reference to `at91_st_base' > > drivers/built-in.o:at91_adc.c:(.text+0xca2c8): more undefined references to > > `at91_st_base' follow > > > > So, reverting the modification of the "depends" Kconfig line > > introduced by patch a6a1bcd37 (watchdog: at91rm9200: add DT support) > > seems to be the good solution. > > > Really ? Why ? I mean, this was supposed to be for at91rm9200, wasn't it ? > And why would want try to compile a watchdog for at91rm9200 without at91rm9200 > support ? > > I understand there is a problem, I just don't see how removing that line would > solve it. > Me confused, sorry. I somehow thought you were removing the ARCH_AT91RM9200 dependency, not adding it. Acked-by: Guenter Roeck Guenter