From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757259Ab0IHAZg (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Sep 2010 20:25:36 -0400 Received: from kroah.org ([198.145.64.141]:51491 "EHLO coco.kroah.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757064Ab0IHAZ1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Sep 2010 20:25:27 -0400 Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:58:00 -0700 From: Greg KH To: David Cross Cc: tony@atomide.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpmc, EXPORT_SYMBOLS, west bridge related Message-ID: <20100907235800.GD12823@kroah.com> References: <1283887607.7250.10.camel@odc-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1283887607.7250.10.camel@odc-laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 12:26:47PM -0700, David Cross wrote: > This patch exports some of the gpmc driver functions in OMAP3. The purpose behind this patch > is to allow device drivers compiled as loadable modules to be interfaced to the GPMC. I am > hoping that Tony is the correct maintainer and willing to ACK this change. Please let me know > if there are any issues or concerns with this patch. > Thanks, > David > > Signed-off-by: David Cross > > diff -uprN -X linux-next-vanilla/Documentation/dontdiff linux-next-vanilla/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c linux-next-incl-sdk/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c > --- linux-next-vanilla/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c 2010-08-31 19:32:51.000000000 -0700 > +++ linux-next-incl-sdk/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc.c 2010-09-01 16:10:21.000000000 -0700 > @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@ void gpmc_cs_write_reg(int cs, int idx, > reg_addr = gpmc_base + GPMC_CS0_OFFSET + (cs * GPMC_CS_SIZE) + idx; > __raw_writel(val, reg_addr); > } > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(gpmc_cs_write_reg); EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() perhaps? What about platforms that don't have this symbol, how will the driver build properly then? Shouldn't something like this be in a arch-neutral place in the kernel tree? thanks, greg k-h