linux-next: Tree for Jun 27

Hi all, Changes since 20190626: The arm64 tree gained a conflict aginst the arm64-fixes tree. The fbdev tree lost its build failure. The net-next tree still had its build failure for which I reverted a commit. It also gained a conflict against the net tree. The mlx5-next tree gained conflicts

linux-next: Tree for Jun 27

Hi all, Changes since 20180626: The btrfs-kdave tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20180626. The rdma tree gained a conflict against the rdma-fixes tree. The drm tree still had its build failure for which I disabled some sample code. Non-merge commits (relative to

linux-next: Tree for Jun 27

Hi all, Changes since 20180626: The btrfs-kdave tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20180626. The rdma tree gained a conflict against the rdma-fixes tree. The drm tree still had its build failure for which I disabled some sample code. Non-merge commits (relative to

linux-next: Tree for Jun 27

Hi all, Changes since 20170626: The i2c tree still had its build failure so I used the version from next-20170623. The scsi tree gained a conflict against the jc_docs tree. The akpm tree lost its build failure. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 9096 8702 files changed, 708045

linux-next: Tree for Jun 27

Hi all, Changes since 20170626: The i2c tree still had its build failure so I used the version from next-20170623. The scsi tree gained a conflict against the jc_docs tree. The akpm tree lost its build failure. Non-merge commits (relative to Linus' tree): 9096 8702 files changed, 708045

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> I merged it I think, Alex made a long series enabling compile >> testing and I started to cherry-pick the first commits to let >> them trickle in. > > I guess that when you do a git pull of a series of patches, you >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: >> I merged it I think, Alex made a long series enabling compile >> testing and I started to cherry-pick the first commits to let >> them trickle in. > > I guess that when you do a git pull of a series of patches, you > sign the pull commit but

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On 07/04/16 02:46, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 06/26/16 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Changes since 20160624: >>> >> >> on i386, when CONFIG_OF is not enabled ... >> but OF_GPIO is enabled due to

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On 07/04/16 02:46, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > >> On 06/26/16 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Changes since 20160624: >>> >> >> on i386, when CONFIG_OF is not enabled ... >> but OF_GPIO is enabled due to this in

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 06/26/16 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Changes since 20160624: >> > > on i386, when CONFIG_OF is not enabled ... > but OF_GPIO is enabled due to this in drivers/gpio/Kconfig: > > config OF_GPIO >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 06/26/16 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Changes since 20160624: >> > > on i386, when CONFIG_OF is not enabled ... > but OF_GPIO is enabled due to this in drivers/gpio/Kconfig: > > config OF_GPIO > def_bool y >

Re: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On Tuesday 28 June 2016, 10:37:52 wrote Arnd Bergmann: > > > I think the commit should just be reverted, it clearly breaks > > > stuff, and whatever needs it can be fixed in a better way. > > > > Why not depend PINCTRL_IPROC_GPIO on CONFIG_OF as Randy stated > >

Re: Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On Tuesday 28 June 2016, 10:37:52 wrote Arnd Bergmann: > > > I think the commit should just be reverted, it clearly breaks > > > stuff, and whatever needs it can be fixed in a better way. > > > > Why not depend PINCTRL_IPROC_GPIO on CONFIG_OF as Randy stated > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:00:47 AM CEST Alexander Stein wrote: > On Monday 27 June 2016 23:36:29, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday, June 27, 2016 11:15:25 AM CEST Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > On 06/26/16 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > Changes since 20160624: > > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 9:00:47 AM CEST Alexander Stein wrote: > On Monday 27 June 2016 23:36:29, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Monday, June 27, 2016 11:15:25 AM CEST Randy Dunlap wrote: > > > On 06/26/16 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > Changes since 20160624: > > >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On 06/28/16 00:00, Alexander Stein wrote: > On Monday 27 June 2016 23:36:29, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Monday, June 27, 2016 11:15:25 AM CEST Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> On 06/26/16 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, >>> Changes since 20160624: >>> on i386, when CONFIG_OF is not enabled

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On 06/28/16 00:00, Alexander Stein wrote: > On Monday 27 June 2016 23:36:29, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Monday, June 27, 2016 11:15:25 AM CEST Randy Dunlap wrote: >>> On 06/26/16 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, >>> Changes since 20160624: >>> on i386, when CONFIG_OF is not enabled

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On Monday 27 June 2016 23:36:29, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday, June 27, 2016 11:15:25 AM CEST Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On 06/26/16 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > Changes since 20160624: > > on i386, when CONFIG_OF is not enabled ... > > but OF_GPIO is enabled due to

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On Monday 27 June 2016 23:36:29, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday, June 27, 2016 11:15:25 AM CEST Randy Dunlap wrote: > > On 06/26/16 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > Changes since 20160624: > > on i386, when CONFIG_OF is not enabled ... > > but OF_GPIO is enabled due to

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On Monday, June 27, 2016 11:15:25 AM CEST Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 06/26/16 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20160624: > > > > on i386, when CONFIG_OF is not enabled ... > but OF_GPIO is enabled due to this in drivers/gpio/Kconfig: > > config OF_GPIO >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On Monday, June 27, 2016 11:15:25 AM CEST Randy Dunlap wrote: > On 06/26/16 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Changes since 20160624: > > > > on i386, when CONFIG_OF is not enabled ... > but OF_GPIO is enabled due to this in drivers/gpio/Kconfig: > > config OF_GPIO >

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On 06/26/16 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20160624: > on i386, when CONFIG_OF is not enabled ... but OF_GPIO is enabled due to this in drivers/gpio/Kconfig: config OF_GPIO def_bool y depends on OF || COMPILE_TEST (above from commit

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (pinctrl && !CONFIG_OF)

On 06/26/16 23:39, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20160624: > on i386, when CONFIG_OF is not enabled ... but OF_GPIO is enabled due to this in drivers/gpio/Kconfig: config OF_GPIO def_bool y depends on OF || COMPILE_TEST (above from commit

linux-next: Tree for Jun 27

Hi all, Changes since 20160624: The nfs tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20160624. The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The crypto tree lost its build failure. The jc_docs tree gained a conflict against the drm tree. The devicetree tree gained

linux-next: Tree for Jun 27

Hi all, Changes since 20160624: The nfs tree gained a build failure so I used the version from next-20160624. The net-next tree gained a conflict against the net tree. The crypto tree lost its build failure. The jc_docs tree gained a conflict against the drm tree. The devicetree tree gained

linux-next: Tree for Jun 27

Hi all, The powerpc allyesconfig is again broken more than usual. Changes since 20140626: New tree: usb-serial-fixes The staging tree still had its build failure for which I disabled a driver. The akpm-current tree its build failure (I applied a supplied patch). Non-merge commits (relative

linux-next: Tree for Jun 27

Hi all, The powerpc allyesconfig is again broken more than usual. Changes since 20140626: New tree: usb-serial-fixes The staging tree still had its build failure for which I disabled a driver. The akpm-current tree its build failure (I applied a supplied patch). Non-merge commits (relative

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (v4l2 & usbtv)

On 06/27/13 02:24, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Changes since 20130626: > on i386: CONFIG_VIDEO_USBTV=y CONFIG_I2C=m CONFIG_VIDEO_V4L2=m Looks like VIDEO_USBTV should depend on VIDEO_V4L2. drivers/built-in.o: In function `vb2_fop_mmap': (.text+0x199b4e): undefined reference to

Re: linux-next: Tree for Jun 27 (v4l2 usbtv)

On 06/27/13 02:24, Stephen Rothwell wrote: Hi all, Changes since 20130626: on i386: CONFIG_VIDEO_USBTV=y CONFIG_I2C=m CONFIG_VIDEO_V4L2=m Looks like VIDEO_USBTV should depend on VIDEO_V4L2. drivers/built-in.o: In function `vb2_fop_mmap': (.text+0x199b4e): undefined reference to