Hi Linus,
After merging the pinctrl tree, today's linux-next build (arm
multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c: In function 'iproc_gpio_unregister_pinconf':
drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c:642:25: error: dereferencing pointer to incomplete type 'struct cygnus_gpio'
pinctrl_unregister(chip->pctl);
^
drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c: In function 'iproc_gpio_probe':
drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c:738:32: warning: passing argument 1 of 'iproc_gpio_unregister_pinconf' from incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
iproc_gpio_unregister_pinconf(chip);
^
drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c:640:13: note: expected 'struct cygnus_gpio *' but argument is of type 'struct iproc_gpio *'
static void iproc_gpio_unregister_pinconf(struct cygnus_gpio *chip)
^
Caused by commit
616043d58a89 ("pinctrl: Rename gpio driver from cygnus to iproc")
I have used the pinctrl tree from next-20151217 for today.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
Hi Stephen/Linus,
The patch " [PATCH v2 5/7] gpio: Rename func/macro/var to IP-block,iproc"
(https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/18/1004) in "for-next" and "devel" of pinctrl
tree ( http://git.linaro.org/people/linus.walleij/linux-pinctrl.git ) has little rebase issue.
Original patch has:
<snip>
-static void cygnus_gpio_unregister_pinconf(struct cygnus_gpio *chip)
+static void iproc_gpio_unregister_pinconf(struct iproc_gpio *chip)
<snip>
while "for-next" and "devel" branch of pinctrl tree has:
<snip>
-static void cygnus_gpio_unregister_pinconf(struct cygnus_gpio *chip)
+static void iproc_gpio_unregister_pinconf(struct cygnus_gpio *chip)
<snip>
Please suggest us how could we fix this issue.
Regards,
Pramod
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Rothwell [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 18 December 2015 09:15
> To: Linus Walleij
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Pramod Kumar;
> Ray Jui; Scott Branden
> Subject: linux-next: build failure after merge of the pinctrl tree
>
> Hi Linus,
>
> After merging the pinctrl tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c: In function
> 'iproc_gpio_unregister_pinconf':
> drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c:642:25: error: dereferencing pointer to
> incomplete type 'struct cygnus_gpio'
> pinctrl_unregister(chip->pctl);
> ^
> drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c: In function 'iproc_gpio_probe':
> drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c:738:32: warning: passing argument 1 of
> 'iproc_gpio_unregister_pinconf' from incompatible pointer type [-
> Wincompatible-pointer-types]
> iproc_gpio_unregister_pinconf(chip);
> ^
> drivers/pinctrl/bcm/pinctrl-iproc-gpio.c:640:13: note: expected 'struct
> cygnus_gpio *' but argument is of type 'struct iproc_gpio *'
> static void iproc_gpio_unregister_pinconf(struct cygnus_gpio *chip)
> ^
>
> Caused by commit
>
> 616043d58a89 ("pinctrl: Rename gpio driver from cygnus to iproc")
>
> I have used the pinctrl tree from next-20151217 for today.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
Hi Pramod,
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 05:34:58 +0000 Pramod Kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen/Linus,
>
> Please suggest us how could we fix this issue.
I think you issue is different from what I reported, What I reported
was caused by the addition of the dependency on COMPILE_TEST which
allowed the driver to be built on architectures/platforms that do not
have the needed definitions.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
Hi Stephen,
The issue I pointed out is the relevant and is fully related to the statement-
" After merging the pinctrl tree, today's linux-next build (arm
multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:"
Even I tried the build for config "arm multi_v7_defconfig" it was compile failed. After fixing this I see compilation successful. I don't think we see any more issue after this fix.
Please let me know in case I should try any more compilation.
Regards,
Pramod
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Rothwell [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: 18 December 2015 11:28
> To: Pramod Kumar
> Cc: Linus Walleij; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ray
> Jui; Scott Branden
> Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the pinctrl tree
>
> Hi Pramod,
>
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 05:34:58 +0000 Pramod Kumar
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Stephen/Linus,
> >
> > Please suggest us how could we fix this issue.
>
> I think you issue is different from what I reported, What I reported was caused
> by the addition of the dependency on COMPILE_TEST which allowed the driver
> to be built on architectures/platforms that do not have the needed definitions.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
Hi All,
Yes I also checked the original patch that Pramod sent out:
@@ -636,13 +638,13 @@ static int cygnus_gpio_register_pinconf(struct
cygnus_gpio *chip)
return 0;
}
-static void cygnus_gpio_unregister_pinconf(struct cygnus_gpio *chip)
+static void iproc_gpio_unregister_pinconf(struct iproc_gpio *chip)
{
if (chip->pctl)
pinctrl_unregister(chip->pctl);
}
Somehow it was not merged properly into Linus' tree? The fix is simple
and just like Pramod proposed.
Linus, how do you want to proceed with this?
Thanks,
Ray
On 12/17/2015 10:12 PM, Pramod Kumar wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> The issue I pointed out is the relevant and is fully related to the statement-
>
> " After merging the pinctrl tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:"
>
> Even I tried the build for config "arm multi_v7_defconfig" it was compile failed. After fixing this I see compilation successful. I don't think we see any more issue after this fix.
>
> Please let me know in case I should try any more compilation.
>
> Regards,
> Pramod
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Rothwell [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: 18 December 2015 11:28
>> To: Pramod Kumar
>> Cc: Linus Walleij; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ray
>> Jui; Scott Branden
>> Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the pinctrl tree
>>
>> Hi Pramod,
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 05:34:58 +0000 Pramod Kumar
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Stephen/Linus,
>>>
>>> Please suggest us how could we fix this issue.
>>
>> I think you issue is different from what I reported, What I reported was caused
>> by the addition of the dependency on COMPILE_TEST which allowed the driver
>> to be built on architectures/platforms that do not have the needed definitions.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Stephen Rothwell [email protected]
>