From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@linaro.org>
Organization: Linaro Limited 
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@avionic-design.de>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (pwm tree related)
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 20:12:32 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.5.0-rc1+; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, linux-next@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
References: <20120629174826.546cc991459b12833f2aaebd@canb.auug.org.au> <201206301920.21158.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org> <20120630194139.GA24300@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de>
In-Reply-To: <20120630194139.GA24300@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201206302012.32476.arnd.bergmann@linaro.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 871
Lines: 21

On Saturday 30 June 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > I think that all the drivers that are not converted to the common PWM
> > layer yet should depend on not enabling the common code. Once they
> > are all moved over, that dependency will go away.
> 
> Right. That's exactly what I meant. If we add depends on !HAVE_PWM to
> the PWM symbol that should result in both options conflicting, and
> therefore not being built at the same time.

But I would add it to all other ones then, not the generic one!

One question though: if the generic pwm implementation does not set
HAVE_PWM, how can a driver check its presence?

	Arnd

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/