Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the final tree (pwm tree related)

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Sat, Jun 30, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Saturday 30 June 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> I hadn't thought about the allyesconfig case yet. Adding a "depends on
>> !HAVE_PWM" to the PWM symbol should work and is the easiest fix to this
>> kind of problem while other PWM legacy API implementations are ported to
>> the PWM subsystem.
>>
>> Sascha, Arnd (Cc'ed): what do you think?
>>
>> I don't know if I'll get enough time to test this over the weekend but I
>> should get to it when I'm back in the office on Monday.
>>
> You cannot depend on a symbol in the same place that provides it -- that
> would be a recursive dependency (or a paradox).
>
> 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.

Hence you cannot have a single kernel image that contains both legacy and new
drivers. I don't know whether there's any such combination that makes sense,
though.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/