On 13/01/2016 12:25, Felix Fietkau wrote: > On 2016-01-13 12:05, John Crispin wrote: >> >> >> On 13/01/2016 12:03, Felix Fietkau wrote: >>> On 2016-01-13 08:50, John Crispin wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13/01/2016 08:47, Wojciech Dubowik wrote: >>>>> ++#if defined(__UCLIBC__) >>>>> ++/* This syscall is not defined in uClibc 0.93.2 */ >>>>> ++#include <sys/syscall.h> >>>>> ++static int clock_adjtime(clockid_t id, struct timex *tx) >>>>> ++{ >>>>> ++ return syscall(__NR_clock_adjtime, id, tx); >>>>> ++} >>>>> ++#endif >>>>> ++ >>>> >>>> on ppc we are already on musl. i dont think we need to add patches for >>>> a libc that we do not support anymore. could you resend the patch with >>>> the uclibc patches removed please ? >>> Actually... We do have one target that still relies on uClibc - and this >>> package is not ppc specific. >>> >>> - Felix >> >> which target and does it have a ptp HW ? > ARC770. At the moment it's virtual, not sure if we will see HW with PTP > support. Since uClibc fixes are already there, we might as well keep > them (assuming they work with uClibc-ng). If not, we should at least > have a dependency on !USE_UCLIBC. > > - Felix >
i can live with a !USE_UCLIBC dependency @Wojciech: could you send the patch a 4th time with the dependency added ? sorry for the hassle ... John _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org > https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel > _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel