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 14:25:54 -0700 Message-ID: <526AE1E2.9080909@linux.intel.com> References: <52691c0b.BIIOKlR6F81qU+tE%fengguang.wu@intel.com> <20131025044027.GA27083@localhost> <1382696677.4970.40.camel@dvhart-mobl4.amr.corp.intel.com> <526AE0EB.4020602@linux.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: <526AE0EB.4020602@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 10/25/2013 02:21 PM, David Cohen wrote: > 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. Actually, forget about it. Despite driver_data->platform_init() may return error, probe() never checks for it. I think the driver must be fixed, but in meanwhile a static inline stub seems reasonable. > > Br, David Cohen