From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753929AbYDNJy7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:54:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751198AbYDNJyw (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:54:52 -0400 Received: from mail29.messagelabs.com ([216.82.249.147]:24655 "HELO mail29.messagelabs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750818AbYDNJyv (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Apr 2008 05:54:51 -0400 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: Uwe.Kleine-Koenig@digi.com X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-29.messagelabs.com!1208166890!10837591!1 X-StarScan-Version: 5.5.12.14.2; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [66.77.174.21] Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:54:45 +0200 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= To: Russell King - ARM Linux 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: <20080414095445.GA19413@digi.com> References: <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> <20080414093714.GD1540@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20080414093714.GD1540@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Apr 2008 09:54:46.0481 (UTC) FILETIME=[92399C10:01C89E15] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-8.0.0.1181-5.000.1023-15848.006 X-TM-AS-Result: No--17.857000-8.000000-31 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Russell, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 09:48:58AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > > > > 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...) No, the topic here is a generic uio platform driver. It uses the clk API and Hans criticised that is doesn't compile on x86 (because there is no implementation of the clk API). So I suggested to implement a dummy for that. This is completly independant of the inclusion of drivers/uio/Kconfig in arch/arm/Kconfig. I will send a patch for that. > What's this drivers/uio/uio_pdrv.ko module, and why doesn't it appear > in the LKML archive of this thread? Don't know why lkml.org didn't link these. The start of the thread can be found at http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/4/10/110 gmane managed to link these mails: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/663884 Best regards Uwe -- Uwe Kleine-König, Software Engineer Digi International GmbH Branch Breisach, Küferstrasse 8, 79206 Breisach, Germany Tax: 315/5781/0242 / VAT: DE153662976 / Reg. Amtsgericht Dortmund HRB 13962