From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754140AbYDNJhw (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:37:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752704AbYDNJhi (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:37:38 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:58766 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753239AbYDNJhf (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:37:35 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:37:14 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= Cc: "Hans J. Koch" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: [PATCH 4/4 v2] [RFC] UIO: generic platform driver Message-ID: <20080414093714.GD1540@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1207831023-8583-5-git-send-email-Uwe.Kleine-Koenig@digi.com> <20080410224804.GI3193@local> <20080411062106.GA18096@digi.com> <20080411092158.GB31625@digi.com> <20080411103346.GC3185@local> <20080411110358.GC19973@digi.com> <20080411111703.GD3185@local> <20080411112543.GA23221@digi.com> <20080412131646.GF9669@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20080414074858.GA22694@digi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20080414074858.GA22694@digi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 09:48:58AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > > > > > > But what about this: > > > > > > > > > > > > ERROR: "clk_get" [drivers/uio/uio_pdrv.ko] undefined! > > > > > > ERROR: "clk_enable" [drivers/uio/uio_pdrv.ko] undefined! > > > > > > ERROR: "clk_disable" [drivers/uio/uio_pdrv.ko] undefined! > > > > > > ERROR: "clk_put" [drivers/uio/uio_pdrv.ko] undefined! > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any extra patches applied? > > > > > Yes I have, but nothing special. This is part of a generic API defined > > > > > in include/linux/clk.h. One of it's use it to abstract away some > > > > > platform dependencies. There are several architectures that define > > > > > it[1]. > > > > > > > > I know. Unfortunately, I tested on x86_64, and it doesn't compile. > > > > If it's depending on something, then this dependency should be added in > > > > Kconfig. If it can be selected in the configuration, I expect it to > > > > compile (and work). > > > Maybe adding a dummy implementation that is compiled for machines that > > > don't provide a native one. Currently there is no cpp symbol that tells > > > if an machine supports the API. > > > > > > @Russell: Do you have an opinion regarding this!? > > > > Only that the kernels Kconfig is turning into a real complicated mess > > of dependencies IMHO. > > > > We could add a HAVE_CLK and add that to the dependency of all the drivers > > which use linux/clk.h. The problem will be finding all those drivers and > > their corresponding Kconfig entries. > > > > My feeling is that we're just going to end up creating another Kconfig > > symbol which folk half-heartedly use. > > I don't like that either. What do you think about the patch below? > It doesn't introduce a new symbol that needs much care and attention. > This way the clk API is available on all configurations provided that > CONFIG_DUMMY_CLK is set correctly. If CONFIG_DUMMY_CLK is set wrong it > should result in a compile error. Either because there are two > implementations of clk_get or none. Hang on. I'm lost. What are we talking about here? I thought the thread was about the one liner patch for UIO to arch/arm/Kconfi (which still hasn't hit the patch system so is still on target for being missed...) What's this drivers/uio/uio_pdrv.ko module, and why doesn't it appear in the LKML archive of this thread?