From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756488AbYDWUOh (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:14:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754150AbYDWUO3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:14:29 -0400 Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.191]:16162 "EHLO mu-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754161AbYDWUO2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:14:28 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=BC4vaOw5rgdPNrfzRHHk9vezrq4ljMKOuNHoRYy9VwN30RZ+uTn5M1q8JMk6w67Bi0d8f7GgKFItZSGKWlqiZHueTemzp1L8cgSiTDlmX17RROvA6AcU+LPH4lneEg9VAvifb0EAGvBwXeX51rXSLvtQDh2iYBzuuPXImOl8JIs= Message-ID: <74d0deb30804231314v32303b54q3f6765d354c2f8b2@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:14:26 +0200 From: "pHilipp Zabel" To: "Linus Torvalds" Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: kconfig exposing unbuildable driver Cc: "Russell King" , "Harvey Harrison" , LKML , "Andrew Morton" , "Randy Dunlap" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1208895950.24124.9.camel@brick> <20080422203334.GA9809@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:05 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 22 Apr 2008, Russell King wrote: > > > > > That was my initial approach as well, which got shot down by Andrew > > Morton and others as being unacceptable. > > Hmm. While I in general support the notion of trying to compile drivers on > as wide a variety as hardware as possible, if that HTC_PASIC3 thing really > is a PXA-only piece of hardware, I don't really see the point of not > making the config file accurately represent that. > > That said, as far as I can tell, the compile failure is because of this > line: > > #include > > and I cannot for the life of me see _why_ it tries to include that header > file. It seems to compile fine on x96-64 if you just remove that include, > and while I still think it should depend on ARCH_PXA just because it makes > no sense _not_ to, I do wonder why that include is there in the first > place. > > Hmm? I'm embarrased to say, this is a left-over from a clean-up that happened a long time ago. I probably forgot to double-check the includes of this file before submitting to Russell. And this superfluous include was never pointed out to me because I only compiled that driver for ARM/PXA. It seems having the driver enabled for x86 builds had its benefits (a bug was found :)). I guess now it could just as well be made to depend on ARCH_PXA, because although it does not really depend on pxa, it is not of much use on any other architecture. regards Philipp