Re: [PATCH] mfd: Fix MACRO for commonly declared MFD cell attributes

From: Laxman Dewangan
Date: Wed Mar 16 2016 - 05:36:03 EST

On Wednesday 16 March 2016 02:12 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:

On Friday 11 March 2016 02:09 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Wed, 09 Mar 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
On Wednesday 02 March 2016 06:38 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Laxman Dewangan wrote:

On Friday 26 February 2016 10:05 PM, Rhyland Klein wrote:
Did you not see warnings like this when you compiled the kernel? Did you
find a different approach than what I proposed above to deal with it?
I'd like to get this in soon so that when the max77620 drivers are all
in and using it, it should be functional.

I think the following change also crash in runtime:

commit e60a946f05db2cac857025da6ffb72df48d3be54
Author: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>

mfd: ab8500: Provide a small example using new MFD cell MACROs


Should we have something MFD_CELL_RES, MFD_CELL_RES_PDATA,
MFD_CELL_PDATA, for more common user and not to pass the NULL here.
I'll have a re-think about this.
Did you get chance to look into this? Probably, I need to send my
mfd series once this get fixed before that series applied.
Nothing is going to happen until v4.6 now. It's too late in the
release cycle to be making such a significant addition, and I'd like
the change to sit in -next for a good while before going in.

OK, so can I use the local initializations in my max77620 patches
and resend?
Then later we can have cleanups for part only?

This is because if we get in next release then there is some other
sub modules of the max77620 like clocks, watchdog, power etc which
can go on their subsystem if common header is available.

Sorry if I am asking too much..
For quick accptance, just submit using the normal un-MACRO'ed

Thanks, I had sent V9 version of the MAX77620 which used normal un-MACROed version.