From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751289AbcCFIAh (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Mar 2016 03:00:37 -0500 Received: from hqemgate16.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.65]:9388 "EHLO hqemgate16.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751138AbcCFIA1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 6 Mar 2016 03:00:27 -0500 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp07.nvidia.com on Sat, 05 Mar 2016 23:59:10 -0800 Message-ID: <56DBE099.9080408@nvidia.com> Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 13:17:37 +0530 From: Laxman Dewangan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Brown CC: Subject: Re: Applied "regulator: max8973: add support for junction thermal warning" to the regulator tree References: <20160306023536.GK18327@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20160306023536.GK18327@sirena.org.uk> X-Originating-IP: [10.19.65.30] X-ClientProxiedBy: DRUKMAIL102.nvidia.com (10.25.59.20) To bgmail102.nvidia.com (10.25.59.11) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 06 March 2016 08:05 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > * PGP Signed by an unknown key > > On Sat, Mar 05, 2016 at 09:25:49PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: >> The patch >> >> regulator: max8973: add support for junction thermal warning >> >> has been applied to the regulator tree at >> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git >> >> All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next >> tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during >> the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if >> problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted. > ...and reverted because the 0day bot found similar build failures to the > last time :( > I built for CONFIG_THERMAL=y and with CONFIG_THERMAL disabled for arm64 and it passed the build. The failure is seen on following combination: CONFIG_THERMAL=m CONFIG_THERMAL_OF=y CONFIG_REGULATOR_MAX8973=y Here driver is built in binary and THERMAL is the loadable module. Do we really have THERMAL as module i.e. basic framework? I like to make 8973 independent of the THERMAL and that's why I used the ifdefs CONFIG_THERMAL_OF inside the driver. If THERMAL config is enabled then enable thermal support inside driver. In driver, I used #ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL_OF This config is "y" if the THERMAL is enabled. I made following change inside driver and then it builds properly for above combination: /** diff --git a/drivers/regulator/max8973-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/max8973-regulator.c index a5e0346..d79a487 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/max8973-regulator.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/max8973-regulator.c @@ -474,7 +474,7 @@ static int max8973_init_dcdc(struct max8973_chip *max, return ret; } -#ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL_OF +#ifdef CONFIG_THERMAL static int max8973_thermal_read_temp(void *data, int *temp) { struct max8973_chip *mchip = data; **/ Should I send the modified patch here?