On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:44:52AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 11:32:07AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:01:52AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > > > That's because Mark's patch removes "#include > > > <linux/regulator/consumer.h>" included indirectly by > > > drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c from linux/amba/bus.h. The ste_dma40.c should > > > really directly includes consumer.h. > > > Okay, I'll drop this patch because it's causing regressions, so it can't > > be pushed as a 'fix' during -rc. > > I did say we should've been pushing Shawn's patch in as a minimal fix > for 3.4... What patch? > Alternatively if you're happy with the code just keeping the > header in place should avoid any issues, the one regression was just an > implicit header dependency. > > Regardless of what happens for 3.4 we should keep the removal for -next, > it's clear that we don't want the bus doing this and it's causing > breakage for the non-ST platforms. Do I need to resend the patch to the > patch system or will the existing copy be OK? What I want is something that doesn't cause a regression for 3.4. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
