The camera_supply_dummy_device definition is shared between a780 and a910,
but only provided when the first is enabled and fails to build for a
configuration with only a910:
arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c:1097:3: error: 'camera_supply_dummy_device' undeclared here (not in a function)
This moves the definition into its own section.
Fixes: 6c1b417adc8f ("ARM: pxa: ezx: use the new pxa_camera platform_data")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c
index 0b8300e6fca3..a057cf9c0e7b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c
@@ -696,32 +696,7 @@ static struct pxa27x_keypad_platform_data e2_keypad_platform_data = {
};
#endif /* CONFIG_MACH_EZX_E2 */
-#ifdef CONFIG_MACH_EZX_A780
-/* gpio_keys */
-static struct gpio_keys_button a780_buttons[] = {
- [0] = {
- .code = SW_LID,
- .gpio = GPIO12_A780_FLIP_LID,
- .active_low = 0,
- .desc = "A780 flip lid",
- .type = EV_SW,
- .wakeup = 1,
- },
-};
-
-static struct gpio_keys_platform_data a780_gpio_keys_platform_data = {
- .buttons = a780_buttons,
- .nbuttons = ARRAY_SIZE(a780_buttons),
-};
-
-static struct platform_device a780_gpio_keys = {
- .name = "gpio-keys",
- .id = -1,
- .dev = {
- .platform_data = &a780_gpio_keys_platform_data,
- },
-};
-
+#if defined(CONFIG_MACH_EZX_A780) || defined(CONFIG_MACH_EZX_A910)
/* camera */
static struct regulator_consumer_supply camera_dummy_supplies[] = {
REGULATOR_SUPPLY("vdd", "0-005d"),
@@ -750,6 +725,35 @@ static struct platform_device camera_supply_dummy_device = {
.platform_data = &camera_dummy_config,
},
};
+#endif
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_MACH_EZX_A780
+/* gpio_keys */
+static struct gpio_keys_button a780_buttons[] = {
+ [0] = {
+ .code = SW_LID,
+ .gpio = GPIO12_A780_FLIP_LID,
+ .active_low = 0,
+ .desc = "A780 flip lid",
+ .type = EV_SW,
+ .wakeup = 1,
+ },
+};
+
+static struct gpio_keys_platform_data a780_gpio_keys_platform_data = {
+ .buttons = a780_buttons,
+ .nbuttons = ARRAY_SIZE(a780_buttons),
+};
+
+static struct platform_device a780_gpio_keys = {
+ .name = "gpio-keys",
+ .id = -1,
+ .dev = {
+ .platform_data = &a780_gpio_keys_platform_data,
+ },
+};
+
+/* camera */
static int a780_camera_reset(struct device *dev)
{
gpio_set_value(GPIO19_GEN1_CAM_RST, 0);
--
2.9.0
Hello.
On 24.11.2016 17:29, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The camera_supply_dummy_device definition is shared between a780 and a910,
> but only provided when the first is enabled and fails to build for a
> configuration with only a910:
>
> arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c:1097:3: error: 'camera_supply_dummy_device' undeclared here (not in a function)
>
> This moves the definition into its own section.
>
> Fixes: 6c1b417adc8f ("ARM: pxa: ezx: use the new pxa_camera platform_data")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
I wonder what we should do with ezx.c.
As far as I know neither Daniel nor Harald or myself are doing anything
with this devices anymore. Besides a basic compile test having an ack or
reviewed by from our side is a bit worthless. :/
I should still have some of these phones around in a box somewhere. If
there is someone with a good motivation and time to take over on this
platform we will find a way to get the person this devices.
Any takers? Robert? I guess you are already overloaded but you might
also have an interest. Worth asking :)
In the case nobody wants to pick up here what would you consider the
bets way forward? I could send a patch removing ezx platform support
from the kernel (basically ezx.c plus build support) or I can send a
patch marking it at least orphan in MAINTAINERS. Let me know what you think.
Daniel, Harald, if one of you is still interested in these and what to
pick up the work again, please speak up now. :)
regards
Stefan Schmidt
Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> writes:
> The camera_supply_dummy_device definition is shared between a780 and a910,
> but only provided when the first is enabled and fails to build for a
> configuration with only a910:
>
> arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c:1097:3: error: 'camera_supply_dummy_device' undeclared here (not in a function)
>
> This moves the definition into its own section.
>
> Fixes: 6c1b417adc8f ("ARM: pxa: ezx: use the new pxa_camera platform_data")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
Ah yes, I'll queue that up in pxa/fixes.
This also means that you have a test robot which beats my Jenkins, as mine
didn't complain. Do you have a specific defconfig or is it a randconfig which
reveals that ?
Cheers.
--
Robert
Stefan Schmidt <[email protected]> writes:
> Hello.
>
> On 24.11.2016 17:29, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> The camera_supply_dummy_device definition is shared between a780 and a910,
>> but only provided when the first is enabled and fails to build for a
>> configuration with only a910:
>>
>> arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c:1097:3: error: 'camera_supply_dummy_device' undeclared here (not in a function)
>>
>> This moves the definition into its own section.
>>
>> Fixes: 6c1b417adc8f ("ARM: pxa: ezx: use the new pxa_camera platform_data")
>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>
> I wonder what we should do with ezx.c.
>
> As far as I know neither Daniel nor Harald or myself are doing anything
> with this devices anymore. Besides a basic compile test having an ack or
> reviewed by from our side is a bit worthless. :/
>
> I should still have some of these phones around in a box somewhere. If
> there is someone with a good motivation and time to take over on this
> platform we will find a way to get the person this devices.
>
> Any takers? Robert? I guess you are already overloaded but you might
> also have an interest. Worth asking :)
Oh yes, I'm very interested in your box. Besides I really like old platforms
:)
> In the case nobody wants to pick up here what would you consider the
> bets way forward? I could send a patch removing ezx platform support
> from the kernel (basically ezx.c plus build support) or I can send a
> patch marking it at least orphan in MAINTAINERS. Let me know what you think.
>
> Daniel, Harald, if one of you is still interested in these and what to
> pick up the work again, please speak up now. :)
Unless another maintainer steps in, you can submit a patch to transfer the
maintainance onto me, and we'll see off mailing lists how we could arange the
boards transfer.
Cheers.
--
Robert
Hi Stefan,
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 11:10:09PM +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> Daniel, Harald, if one of you is still interested in these and what to
> pick up the work again, please speak up now. :)
I have no interest, motivtaion nor time to still work on ezx support. I
guess the number of people running a recent kernel on more than 10 year
old 2G-only phones is pretty low these days.
If anyone has a serious interest in taking this over, I think I still
have some A780 and A1200 units that I am happy to provide.
Regards,
Harald
--
- Harald Welte <[email protected]> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
On Friday, November 25, 2016 8:48:53 PM CET Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > The camera_supply_dummy_device definition is shared between a780 and a910,
> > but only provided when the first is enabled and fails to build for a
> > configuration with only a910:
> >
> > arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c:1097:3: error: 'camera_supply_dummy_device' undeclared here (not in a function)
> >
> > This moves the definition into its own section.
> >
> > Fixes: 6c1b417adc8f ("ARM: pxa: ezx: use the new pxa_camera platform_data")
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
>
> Ah yes, I'll queue that up in pxa/fixes.
>
> This also means that you have a test robot which beats my Jenkins, as mine
> didn't complain. Do you have a specific defconfig or is it a randconfig which
> reveals that ?
>
It showed up in randconfig builds, two out of several hundred.
I'm not surprised that nobody else caught it.
Arnd
Hello.
On 25.11.2016 20:53, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> Stefan Schmidt <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>> On 24.11.2016 17:29, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> The camera_supply_dummy_device definition is shared between a780 and a910,
>>> but only provided when the first is enabled and fails to build for a
>>> configuration with only a910:
>>>
>>> arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c:1097:3: error: 'camera_supply_dummy_device' undeclared here (not in a function)
>>>
>>> This moves the definition into its own section.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 6c1b417adc8f ("ARM: pxa: ezx: use the new pxa_camera platform_data")
>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>
>> I wonder what we should do with ezx.c.
>>
>> As far as I know neither Daniel nor Harald or myself are doing anything
>> with this devices anymore. Besides a basic compile test having an ack or
>> reviewed by from our side is a bit worthless. :/
>>
>> I should still have some of these phones around in a box somewhere. If
>> there is someone with a good motivation and time to take over on this
>> platform we will find a way to get the person this devices.
>>
>> Any takers? Robert? I guess you are already overloaded but you might
>> also have an interest. Worth asking :)
> Oh yes, I'm very interested in your box. Besides I really like old platforms
> :)
Great! I should have at least 3 or 4 different devices from the EZX
platform around. I will go and search for the box over the weekend :)
>> In the case nobody wants to pick up here what would you consider the
>> bets way forward? I could send a patch removing ezx platform support
>> from the kernel (basically ezx.c plus build support) or I can send a
>> patch marking it at least orphan in MAINTAINERS. Let me know what you think.
>>
>> Daniel, Harald, if one of you is still interested in these and what to
>> pick up the work again, please speak up now. :)
> Unless another maintainer steps in, you can submit a patch to transfer the
> maintainance onto me, and we'll see off mailing lists how we could arange the
> boards transfer.
I cc'ed another developer who did a lot of work regarding EZX.
Antonio, as you can see from the mail above we are pondering what who
will maintain the ezx platform in the kernel going forward. Neither
Daniel, Harald or me is going to do so. If you have time, interest and
motivation to do so please speak up. I know life moved on and you ahve
other projects and interests so do not feel pressured here. Just say no
if you have no interest. Robert already agreed to act as a fallback so
we would still be safe. :)
regards
Stefan Schmidt
On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 00:30:52 +0100
Stefan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello.
>
Hi everyone,
> On 25.11.2016 20:53, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> > Stefan Schmidt <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> Hello.
> >>
> >> On 24.11.2016 17:29, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >>> The camera_supply_dummy_device definition is shared between a780 and a910,
> >>> but only provided when the first is enabled and fails to build for a
> >>> configuration with only a910:
> >>>
> >>> arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c:1097:3: error: 'camera_supply_dummy_device' undeclared here (not in a function)
> >>>
> >>> This moves the definition into its own section.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 6c1b417adc8f ("ARM: pxa: ezx: use the new pxa_camera platform_data")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>> arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> >>
> >> I wonder what we should do with ezx.c.
> >>
> >> As far as I know neither Daniel nor Harald or myself are doing anything
> >> with this devices anymore. Besides a basic compile test having an ack or
> >> reviewed by from our side is a bit worthless. :/
> >>
> >> I should still have some of these phones around in a box somewhere. If
> >> there is someone with a good motivation and time to take over on this
> >> platform we will find a way to get the person this devices.
> >>
> >> Any takers? Robert? I guess you are already overloaded but you might
> >> also have an interest. Worth asking :)
> > Oh yes, I'm very interested in your box. Besides I really like old platforms
> > :)
>
>
> Great! I should have at least 3 or 4 different devices from the EZX
> platform around. I will go and search for the box over the weekend :)
>
> >> In the case nobody wants to pick up here what would you consider the
> >> bets way forward? I could send a patch removing ezx platform support
> >> from the kernel (basically ezx.c plus build support) or I can send a
> >> patch marking it at least orphan in MAINTAINERS. Let me know what you think.
> >>
> >> Daniel, Harald, if one of you is still interested in these and what to
> >> pick up the work again, please speak up now. :)
> > Unless another maintainer steps in, you can submit a patch to transfer the
> > maintainance onto me, and we'll see off mailing lists how we could arange the
> > boards transfer.
>
> I cc'ed another developer who did a lot of work regarding EZX.
>
> Antonio, as you can see from the mail above we are pondering what who
> will maintain the ezx platform in the kernel going forward. Neither
> Daniel, Harald or me is going to do so. If you have time, interest and
> motivation to do so please speak up. I know life moved on and you ahve
> other projects and interests so do not feel pressured here. Just say no
> if you have no interest. Robert already agreed to act as a fallback so
> we would still be safe. :)
>
I still use a Motorola A1200 with the original EZX stack as my main
phone (and that tells something about how much I use a phone...)
however I haven't touched any OpenEZX stuff in a while.
I don't think I am going to play with these devices anytime soon, but I
can provide Robert any info he may need about OpenEZX, the development
tools and the out-of-tree patches required to make the phones somewhat
usable.
I have an off-line backup of the OpenEZX wiki as well if that should be
needed.
Robert, feel free to contact me off-list any time.
I also still hang out in the #openezx IRC channel on Freenode.
Ciao ciao,
Antonio
--
Antonio Ospite
https://ao2.it
https://twitter.com/ao2it
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Hello.
On 03.12.2016 17:55, Antonio Ospite wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2016 00:30:52 +0100
> Stefan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hello.
>>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>> On 25.11.2016 20:53, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
>>> Stefan Schmidt <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Hello.
>>>>
>>>> On 24.11.2016 17:29, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>>> The camera_supply_dummy_device definition is shared between a780 and a910,
>>>>> but only provided when the first is enabled and fails to build for a
>>>>> configuration with only a910:
>>>>>
>>>>> arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c:1097:3: error: 'camera_supply_dummy_device' undeclared here (not in a function)
>>>>>
>>>>> This moves the definition into its own section.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 6c1b417adc8f ("ARM: pxa: ezx: use the new pxa_camera platform_data")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/arm/mach-pxa/ezx.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>>>
>>>> I wonder what we should do with ezx.c.
>>>>
>>>> As far as I know neither Daniel nor Harald or myself are doing anything
>>>> with this devices anymore. Besides a basic compile test having an ack or
>>>> reviewed by from our side is a bit worthless. :/
>>>>
>>>> I should still have some of these phones around in a box somewhere. If
>>>> there is someone with a good motivation and time to take over on this
>>>> platform we will find a way to get the person this devices.
>>>>
>>>> Any takers? Robert? I guess you are already overloaded but you might
>>>> also have an interest. Worth asking :)
>>> Oh yes, I'm very interested in your box. Besides I really like old platforms
>>> :)
>>
>>
>> Great! I should have at least 3 or 4 different devices from the EZX
>> platform around. I will go and search for the box over the weekend :)
>>
>>>> In the case nobody wants to pick up here what would you consider the
>>>> bets way forward? I could send a patch removing ezx platform support
>>>> from the kernel (basically ezx.c plus build support) or I can send a
>>>> patch marking it at least orphan in MAINTAINERS. Let me know what you think.
>>>>
>>>> Daniel, Harald, if one of you is still interested in these and what to
>>>> pick up the work again, please speak up now. :)
>>> Unless another maintainer steps in, you can submit a patch to transfer the
>>> maintainance onto me, and we'll see off mailing lists how we could arange the
>>> boards transfer.
>>
>> I cc'ed another developer who did a lot of work regarding EZX.
>>
>> Antonio, as you can see from the mail above we are pondering what who
>> will maintain the ezx platform in the kernel going forward. Neither
>> Daniel, Harald or me is going to do so. If you have time, interest and
>> motivation to do so please speak up. I know life moved on and you ahve
>> other projects and interests so do not feel pressured here. Just say no
>> if you have no interest. Robert already agreed to act as a fallback so
>> we would still be safe. :)
>>
>
> I still use a Motorola A1200 with the original EZX stack as my main
> phone (and that tells something about how much I use a phone...)
hehe :)
> however I haven't touched any OpenEZX stuff in a while.
>
> I don't think I am going to play with these devices anytime soon, but I
> can provide Robert any info he may need about OpenEZX, the development
> tools and the out-of-tree patches required to make the phones somewhat
> usable.
Great. I think this will be a great help for Robert when he tries to get
things going. Thanks a lot!
Robert, please send me your address details off list so we can arrange
for the device shipping. I will send a patch transferring the
maintainership for the EZX platform over to you in the next days.
regards
Stefan Schmidt