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

[Stephen Rothwell]

Hi all,

On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 08:56:39 +0200 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> But if we make the new PWM symbol conflict with HAVE_PWM, then it'll do
> the right thing for any of the legacy PWM implementations, without
> having to track them down. Furthermore it'll also keep the legacy
> version by default and not allow the generic one to be enabled in that
> case. This is more likely to cause less side-effects than the other way
> around.
> 
> > One question though: if the generic pwm implementation does not set
> > HAVE_PWM, how can a driver check its presence?
> 
> The driver depends on PWM. HAVE_PWM is the symbol for the legacy
> implementations, while PWM is the new PWM API symbol.

I am still getting the mutliple definition errors from my powerpc
allyesconfg build.

$ grep PWM .config
CONFIG_TWL6030_PWM=y
CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_PWM=y
CONFIG_PWM=y

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature