Hi Liam,
Today's linux-next merge of the voltage tree got a conflict in
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c between commit
441a450554dada1c59fc06fdf068cb0eeba53c6d ("regulator: Add support for
twl6030 regulators") from Linus' tree and commits
6360cf42ae51be5f6e6e72d6e81f202d9db0f7e9 ("twl4030-regulator: Remove
regulator from all groups when disabling") and
3277b9fce0fcaa68d5947429e062163852ebc6fb ("twl4030-regulator: Add all TWL
regulators to twreg_info") from the voltage tree.
I cannot begin to fix this mess up. I do wonder why the regulator patch
above was never in linux-next before being sent upstream yesterday
(Samuel?). All I can do is use the version of the voltage tree from
next-20091120 (commit id b0a7a2ad0aebb35934de6d2509c73fe93a362c0e) for
today and hope that Liam can do the merge with Linus' tree.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Hi Stephen,
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 13:38 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Liam,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the voltage tree got a conflict in
> drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c between commit
> 441a450554dada1c59fc06fdf068cb0eeba53c6d ("regulator: Add support for
> twl6030 regulators") from Linus' tree and commits
> 6360cf42ae51be5f6e6e72d6e81f202d9db0f7e9 ("twl4030-regulator: Remove
> regulator from all groups when disabling") and
> 3277b9fce0fcaa68d5947429e062163852ebc6fb ("twl4030-regulator: Add all TWL
> regulators to twreg_info") from the voltage tree.
>
> I cannot begin to fix this mess up. I do wonder why the regulator patch
> above was never in linux-next before being sent upstream yesterday
> (Samuel?). All I can do is use the version of the voltage tree from
> next-20091120 (commit id b0a7a2ad0aebb35934de6d2509c73fe93a362c0e) for
> today and hope that Liam can do the merge with Linus' tree.
>
Sorry about this. There were some large patch sets that did span both
mfd and regulator recently.
I'll fix and do my pull request today.
Liam
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:48 +0000, Liam Girdwood wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 13:38 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Liam,
> >
> > Today's linux-next merge of the voltage tree got a conflict in
> > drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c between commit
> > 441a450554dada1c59fc06fdf068cb0eeba53c6d ("regulator: Add support for
> > twl6030 regulators") from Linus' tree and commits
> > 6360cf42ae51be5f6e6e72d6e81f202d9db0f7e9 ("twl4030-regulator: Remove
> > regulator from all groups when disabling") and
> > 3277b9fce0fcaa68d5947429e062163852ebc6fb ("twl4030-regulator: Add all TWL
> > regulators to twreg_info") from the voltage tree.
> >
> > I cannot begin to fix this mess up. I do wonder why the regulator patch
> > above was never in linux-next before being sent upstream yesterday
> > (Samuel?). All I can do is use the version of the voltage tree from
> > next-20091120 (commit id b0a7a2ad0aebb35934de6d2509c73fe93a362c0e) for
> > today and hope that Liam can do the merge with Linus' tree.
> >
>
> Sorry about this. There were some large patch sets that did span both
> mfd and regulator recently.
>
> I'll fix and do my pull request today.
Peter, Juha,
I've fixed up regulator for-next against upstream and now get a build
failure on twl-regulator.c (possibly related to mfd/twl-codec.c build
failure today ?)
CC drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.o
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c: In function ‘twlreg_disable’:
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:158: error: ‘P1_GRP’ undeclared (first use in this function)
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:158: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:158: error: for each function it appears in.)
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:158: error: ‘P2_GRP’ undeclared (first use in this function)
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:158: error: ‘P3_GRP’ undeclared (first use in this function)
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c: At top level:
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:358: error: ‘twlldo_list_voltage’ undeclared here (not in a function)
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:450:35: error: macro "TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:450: error: ‘TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO’ undeclared here (not in a function)
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:451:40: error: macro "TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:452:35: error: macro "TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:453:35: error: macro "TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:454:35: error: macro "TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:455:35: error: macro "TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:456:35: error: macro "TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:457:35: error: macro "TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:458:35: error: macro "TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:459:34: error: macro "TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:460:35: error: macro "TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:461:40: error: macro "TWL_FIXED_LDO" requires 5 arguments, but only 4 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:461: error: ‘TWL_FIXED_LDO’ undeclared here (not in a function)
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:462:39: error: macro "TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:463:39: error: macro "TWL_FIXED_LDO" requires 5 arguments, but only 4 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:464:34: error: macro "TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:465:35: error: macro "TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:466:35: error: macro "TWL_ADJUSTABLE_LDO" requires 4 arguments, but only 3 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:467:39: error: macro "TWL_FIXED_LDO" requires 5 arguments, but only 4 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:468:39: error: macro "TWL_FIXED_LDO" requires 5 arguments, but only 4 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:469:39: error: macro "TWL_FIXED_LDO" requires 5 arguments, but only 4 given
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:474: error: ‘VAUX1_6030_VSEL_table’ undeclared here (not in a function)
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:474: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:474: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:474: error: negative width in bit-field ‘<anonymous>’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:474: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:474: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:474: error: negative width in bit-field ‘<anonymous>’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:475: error: ‘VAUX2_6030_VSEL_table’ undeclared here (not in a function)
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:475: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:475: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:475: error: negative width in bit-field ‘<anonymous>’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:475: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:475: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:475: error: negative width in bit-field ‘<anonymous>’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:476: error: ‘VAUX3_6030_VSEL_table’ undeclared here (not in a function)
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:476: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:476: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:476: error: negative width in bit-field ‘<anonymous>’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:476: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:476: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:476: error: negative width in bit-field ‘<anonymous>’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:477: error: ‘VMMC_VSEL_table’ undeclared here (not in a function)
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:477: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:477: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:477: error: negative width in bit-field ‘<anonymous>’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:477: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:477: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:477: error: negative width in bit-field ‘<anonymous>’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:478: error: ‘VPP_VSEL_table’ undeclared here (not in a function)
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:478: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:478: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:478: error: negative width in bit-field ‘<anonymous>’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:478: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:478: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:478: error: negative width in bit-field ‘<anonymous>’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:479: error: ‘VUSIM_VSEL_table’ undeclared here (not in a function)
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:479: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:479: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:479: error: negative width in bit-field ‘<anonymous>’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:479: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:479: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘type name’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:479: error: negative width in bit-field ‘<anonymous>’
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c: In function ‘twlreg_probe’:
drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c:544: error: implicit declaration of function ‘twl4030reg_write’
make[2]: *** [drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [drivers/regulator] Error 2
make: *** [drivers] Error 2
Can you check this and send me patch before I issue a pull request.
Fwiw, the regulator pull request is now blocking on this issue.
Thanks.
Liam
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 13:14 +0100, ext Liam Girdwood wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:48 +0000, Liam Girdwood wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 13:38 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Liam,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the voltage tree got a conflict in
> > > drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c between commit
> > > 441a450554dada1c59fc06fdf068cb0eeba53c6d ("regulator: Add support for
> > > twl6030 regulators") from Linus' tree and commits
> > > 6360cf42ae51be5f6e6e72d6e81f202d9db0f7e9 ("twl4030-regulator: Remove
> > > regulator from all groups when disabling") and
> > > 3277b9fce0fcaa68d5947429e062163852ebc6fb ("twl4030-regulator: Add all TWL
> > > regulators to twreg_info") from the voltage tree.
> > >
> > > I cannot begin to fix this mess up. I do wonder why the regulator patch
> > > above was never in linux-next before being sent upstream yesterday
> > > (Samuel?). All I can do is use the version of the voltage tree from
> > > next-20091120 (commit id b0a7a2ad0aebb35934de6d2509c73fe93a362c0e) for
> > > today and hope that Liam can do the merge with Linus' tree.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry about this. There were some large patch sets that did span both
> > mfd and regulator recently.
> >
> > I'll fix and do my pull request today.
>
> Peter, Juha,
>
> I've fixed up regulator for-next against upstream and now get a build
> failure on twl-regulator.c (possibly related to mfd/twl-codec.c build
> failure today ?)
> Can you check this and send me patch before I issue a pull request.
> Fwiw, the regulator pull request is now blocking on this issue.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Liam
Hi Liam
I should be able to fix at the very least most of those during tomorrow,
it appears that some changes with the 6030 additions confused the
patches I sent to you earlier. I'll send you a patch tomorrows
Best regards,
Juha K-S
Hello Liam,
On Tuesday 15 December 2009 14:14:02 ext Liam Girdwood wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:48 +0000, Liam Girdwood wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 13:38 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > Hi Liam,
> > >
> > > Today's linux-next merge of the voltage tree got a conflict in
> > > drivers/regulator/twl-regulator.c between commit
> > > 441a450554dada1c59fc06fdf068cb0eeba53c6d ("regulator: Add support for
> > > twl6030 regulators") from Linus' tree and commits
> > > 6360cf42ae51be5f6e6e72d6e81f202d9db0f7e9 ("twl4030-regulator: Remove
> > > regulator from all groups when disabling") and
> > > 3277b9fce0fcaa68d5947429e062163852ebc6fb ("twl4030-regulator: Add all
> > > TWL regulators to twreg_info") from the voltage tree.
> > >
> > > I cannot begin to fix this mess up. I do wonder why the regulator
> > > patch above was never in linux-next before being sent upstream
> > > yesterday (Samuel?). All I can do is use the version of the voltage
> > > tree from next-20091120 (commit id
> > > b0a7a2ad0aebb35934de6d2509c73fe93a362c0e) for today and hope that Liam
> > > can do the merge with Linus' tree.
> >
> > Sorry about this. There were some large patch sets that did span both
> > mfd and regulator recently.
> >
> > I'll fix and do my pull request today.
>
> Peter, Juha,
>
> I've fixed up regulator for-next against upstream and now get a build
> failure on twl-regulator.c (possibly related to mfd/twl-codec.c build
> failure today ?)
I think this is not related to twl403-codec.c (or twl-codec.c, if it has been
changed as well).
It looks like the twl6030 changes went in quite an un-organized way, which is
causing lots of problems all over the place...
...
>
> Can you check this and send me patch before I issue a pull request.
> Fwiw, the regulator pull request is now blocking on this issue.
I need to find the series for the twl6030, and check the soc codec driver as
well, if it is still in a working shape.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Liam
>
--
Péter