From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1760932Ab3D3P7d (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:59:33 -0400
Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:2874 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1758280Ab3D3P7a (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:59:30 -0400
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,582,1363132800"; 
   d="scan'208";a="21357389"
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:59:26 +0100
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
X-X-Sender: sstabellini@kaball.uk.xensource.com
To: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Jon Medhurst <tixy@linaro.org>,
        Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
        Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next build error (at91) - use of bool in mach/arch.h
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.03.1304301114140.17372@syhkavp.arg>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1304301659010.5398@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
References: <517F8FF4.3050901@atmel.com> <CAMuHMdXYaDHYq7CG8ftP+yyF18pMx8qZrvM3AUTAXk+tUruNcA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1304301257200.5398@kaball.uk.xensource.com> <alpine.LFD.2.03.1304301114140.17372@syhkavp.arg>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> wrote:
> > > > So, I am wondering if the best correction is to add the types.h header file
> > > > in the asm/mach/arch.h file, like this:
> > > >
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
> > > > @@ -8,6 +8,8 @@
> > > >   * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> > > >   */
> > > >
> > > > +#include <linux/types.h>
> > > > +
> > > >  #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
> > > >
> > > >  struct tag;
> > > >
> > > > or if a better option would be to re-arrange the include directives in
> > > > various at91xxx_devices.c files?
> > > 
> > > Include files should be self-contained, so asm/mach/arch.h is the right place.
> > 
> > Nicolas,
> > are you happy to come up with a proper patch to fix the issue?
> 
> I'd prefer if you just folded the above include into the original patch, 
> unless this has been pulled already.

No, I'll exploit the opportunity to resend the patch series and issue a
PULL request for the arm-soc tree.