[1/3] ARM: mach-omap2: remove bogus "or_module" from rx51-peripherals
diff mbox

Message ID 20160720041332.30789-2-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Paul Gortmaker July 20, 2016, 4:13 a.m. UTC
During unrelated work, attempting to remove an include of the
linux/module.h in favour of "struct module;" in order to reduce
header entanglement, we found doing so caused a build failure in
this file.

It turns out this file uses __init_or_module which lives in the
module.h header, but it wasn't including module.h -- which was
being masked by the module.h in include/linux/gpio/driver.h - the
one we want to remove/replace.

However, if we dig into Makefile / Kconfig we find:

mach-omap2/board-rx51-peripherals.o ---->
   mach-omap2/Makefile:obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_NOKIA_RX51) += board-rx51-peripherals.o

arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig:config MACH_NOKIA_RX51
arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig:    bool "Nokia N900 (RX-51) phone"

...and hence the __init_or_module is pointless, as it will always
evaluate to plain __init.

With ARM and GPIO being different subsystems, we'll need to get
this in ARM 1st, and then wait a release before changing the GPIO
header, otherwise we'll risk triggering build failures.

Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Cc: Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-peripherals.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Tony Lindgren July 22, 2016, 6:41 a.m. UTC | #1
Hi,

* Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> [160719 21:17]:
> During unrelated work, attempting to remove an include of the
> linux/module.h in favour of "struct module;" in order to reduce
> header entanglement, we found doing so caused a build failure in
> this file.

We're planning to drop this file after v4.8-rc1 after I've
verified that legacy booting still works at v4.8-rc1.

Are you OK if I pick this patch into my omap-for-v4.8/legacy
branch? Or if you have a minimal immutable branch against v4.7-rc1
with just this patch I can merge it in no problem.

Regards,

Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Paul Gortmaker July 22, 2016, 2:02 p.m. UTC | #2
[Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: mach-omap2: remove bogus "or_module" from rx51-peripherals] On 21/07/2016 (Thu 23:41) Tony Lindgren wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> * Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> [160719 21:17]:
> > During unrelated work, attempting to remove an include of the
> > linux/module.h in favour of "struct module;" in order to reduce
> > header entanglement, we found doing so caused a build failure in
> > this file.
> 
> We're planning to drop this file after v4.8-rc1 after I've
> verified that legacy booting still works at v4.8-rc1.
> 
> Are you OK if I pick this patch into my omap-for-v4.8/legacy
> branch? Or if you have a minimal immutable branch against v4.7-rc1
> with just this patch I can merge it in no problem.

Is the legacy branch a contingency plan for the case where legacy
booting doesn't work?  If so, that should be OK.

Having the patch present, or having the file deleted both take care of
my concern -- which was was introducing build regressions when adding
the gpio header cleanup into for-4.9 content.  

THanks,
Paul.
--

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Tony Lindgren July 23, 2016, 5:55 a.m. UTC | #3
* Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> [160722 07:02]:
> [Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: mach-omap2: remove bogus "or_module" from rx51-peripherals] On 21/07/2016 (Thu 23:41) Tony Lindgren wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > * Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> [160719 21:17]:
> > > During unrelated work, attempting to remove an include of the
> > > linux/module.h in favour of "struct module;" in order to reduce
> > > header entanglement, we found doing so caused a build failure in
> > > this file.
> > 
> > We're planning to drop this file after v4.8-rc1 after I've
> > verified that legacy booting still works at v4.8-rc1.
> > 
> > Are you OK if I pick this patch into my omap-for-v4.8/legacy
> > branch? Or if you have a minimal immutable branch against v4.7-rc1
> > with just this patch I can merge it in no problem.
> 
> Is the legacy branch a contingency plan for the case where legacy
> booting doesn't work?  If so, that should be OK.

Well it's just a branch of omap legacy booting related patches
for v4.8. But looking at it now, looks like I already pushed out the
removal of the last two remaining board files before I took few weeks
off. But I did not add it to Linux next to keep things working
until -rc1.

> Having the patch present, or having the file deleted both take care of
> my concern -- which was was introducing build regressions when adding
> the gpio header cleanup into for-4.9 content.  

OK. As I've already pushed out the board-*.c removal branch, I
suggest we just drop the $subject patch to avoid a merge conflict.

Regards,

Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Paul Gortmaker July 23, 2016, 2:14 p.m. UTC | #4
[Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: mach-omap2: remove bogus "or_module" from rx51-peripherals] On 22/07/2016 (Fri 22:55) Tony Lindgren wrote:

> * Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> [160722 07:02]:

[...]

> > Having the patch present, or having the file deleted both take care of
> > my concern -- which was was introducing build regressions when adding
> > the gpio header cleanup into for-4.9 content.  
> 
> OK. As I've already pushed out the board-*.c removal branch, I
> suggest we just drop the $subject patch to avoid a merge conflict.

Sounds like a plan.  I'll just keep it in my local queue so my tests
don't fail and drop it on the floor once I see your removal loop around
to me via linux-next or master.

Thanks,
Paul.
--

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Patch
diff mbox

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-peripherals.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-peripherals.c
index a5ab712c1a59..4ddda1d33ec1 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-peripherals.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-rx51-peripherals.c
@@ -978,7 +978,7 @@  static struct twl4030_platform_data rx51_twldata __initdata = {
 	.vio			= &rx51_vio,
 };
 
-static struct tpa6130a2_platform_data rx51_tpa6130a2_data __initdata_or_module = {
+static struct tpa6130a2_platform_data rx51_tpa6130a2_data __initdata = {
 	.power_gpio		= 98,
 };