From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Cohen Subject: Re: [gpio:for-next 67/67] pch_gbe_main.c:undefined reference to `devm_gpio_request_one' Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:21:47 -0700 Message-ID: <526AE0EB.4020602@linux.intel.com> References: <52691c0b.BIIOKlR6F81qU+tE%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <20131025044027.GA27083@localhost> <1382696677.4970.40.camel@dvhart-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Darren Hart , "David S. Miller" , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" , Fengguang Wu , Alexandre Courbot , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" To: Linus Walleij Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hi Linus, On 10/25/2013 03:49 AM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Linus Walleij > wrote: > >>> I wouldn't object to adding a dependency to GPIO_PCH and GPIOLIB >>> unconditionally for PCH_GBE as GPIO_PCH is the same chip... but I don't >>> know if David Miller would be amenable to that. >> >> Well we should probably just stick a dependency to GPIOLIB in there. >> >> - It #includes >> - It uses gpiolib functions to do something vital >> >> It was just happy that dummy versions were slotted in until now. > > ...or maybe I'm just confused now? > > Should we just add a static inline stub of devm_gpio_request_one()? I am not familiar with the HW. But checking the code, platform initialization should fail with a dummy devm_gpio_request_one() implementation. IMO it makes more sense to depend on GPIOLIB. Br, David Cohen