On 06/13/2012 02:02 AM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 07:59:20AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: >> * Thierry Reding wrote: >>> * Thierry Reding wrote: >>>> The latest series for the PWM subsystem is here[0]. However that version >>>> doesn't contain the latest changes that require this. I haven't pushed >>>> those >>>> changes yet because they cause the build to fail (because of these two >>>> missing patches). >>> >>> I just pushed the latest code to the for-next branch. That's the state that >>> I >>> was going to submit during the 3.5 merge window. >>> >>> Thierry >>> >>>> [0]: http://gitorious.org/linux-pwm/linux-pwm >> >> Hi Grant, >> >> Do you have any comments on this? I really want the PWM subsystem to go into >> 3.6, and for that to happen we need to find a solution for this. As I stated >> previously the empty functions are needed to compile the PWM core in !OF >> configurations. >> >> Usually this would be solved by just #ifdef'ing the corresponding code, but >> with the recent introduction of the config_enabled() and IS_ENABLED() macros >> there seems to be a move to replace #ifdef usage with those in order to have >> the corresponding code compile-checked in all configurations and have the >> compiler throw away the unused code. >> >> I believe that this is a good thing, but it will required these empty OF >> functions to be added. If you don't find this an acceptable solution, please >> let me know and I'll convert the OF-specific code in the PWM core to use >> #ifdef instead. > > Grant, Rob, > > any update on this? >
I agree with your comments, and every other OF function you are using has an empty version already, so for both patches: Acked-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]> You can merge these with PWM support since you are dependent on it. Rob _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
