On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 11:14:42AM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 01:00:08AM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > On Tue Aug 20 13, Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 08:34:03PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > On Tue Aug 20 13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2013 04:35:29 PM Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > On Tue Aug 20 13, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2013 09:16:14 AM Mika Westerberg wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 06:26:35PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > > > > > > > Without MODULE_LICENSE set, I get the following with modprobe: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: module license 'unspecified' taints kernel. > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol i2c_new_device (err 0) > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_get_resources (err 0) > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_resource_interrupt (err 0) > > > > > > > > > acpi_i2c: Unknown symbol acpi_dev_free_resource_list (err 0) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jerry Snitselaar <jerry.snitselaar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looks good to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Mika Westerbeg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, OK, but do we need to be able to build that as a module? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe it should just be yes or no? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rafael > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps have depends on I2C=y and be a bool instead of tristate? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's the idea. > > > > > > > > > Does this look okay Mika? > > > > > > > > [PATCH] acpi_i2c: do not build as loadable module > > > > > > > > Change from tristate to bool, and depend on I2C=y > > > > > > I'm not sure about this. Does the below mean that we can't build the ACPI > > > I2C enumeration at all if I2C core is compiled as module? > > > > Yes, that was what Rafael was suggesting. If the ability to compile as > > a module if I2C is a module is needed, then we need the 1st patch. > > In that case I would prefer the first patch. Otherwise we lose the ability > to enumerate I2C devices from ACPI namespace on some distros (at least > Debian builds I2C core as a module). > > Rafael? Actually there's a patch that moves DT I2C helpers to the I2C core here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/19/349 we should probably do the same for the ACPI case. Doing that solves this problem as well. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
