On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:33 PM, Wolfgang Rohdewald
<wolfgang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -913,6 +913,14 @@ static int pctv452e_frontend_attach(struct dvb_usb_adapter *a)
> &a->dev->i2c_adap);
> if (!a->fe_adap[0].fe)
> return -ENODEV;
> +
> + /*
> + * dvb_frontend will call dvb_detach for both stb0899_detach
> + * and stb0899_release but we only do dvb_attach(stb0899_attach).
> + * Increment the module refcount instead.
> + */
> + symbol_get(stb0899_attach);
> +
> if ((dvb_attach(lnbp22_attach, a->fe_adap[0].fe,
> &a->dev->i2c_adap)) == NULL)
> err("Cannot attach lnbp22\n");
This caused a build error in today's linux-next:
In file included from drivers/media/usb/dvb-usb/pctv452e.c:20:0:
drivers/media/usb/dvb-usb/pctv452e.c: In function 'pctv452e_frontend_attach':
drivers/media/dvb-frontends/stb0899_drv.h:151:36: error: weak
declaration of 'stb0899_attach' being applied to a already existing,
static definition
static inline struct dvb_frontend *stb0899_attach(struct
stb0899_config *config,
I don't really understand where the 'weak' declaration came from, but this seems
to be related to resolving a symbol for a function that was declared
'static inline'.
The random configuration that caused this included:
CONFIG_DVB_USB_PCTV452E=y
# CONFIG_DVB_STB0899 is not set
# CONFIG_MODULES is not set
Arnd
