On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 03:43:18PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 08:56:39 +0200 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > But if we make the new PWM symbol conflict with HAVE_PWM, then it'll do > > the right thing for any of the legacy PWM implementations, without > > having to track them down. Furthermore it'll also keep the legacy > > version by default and not allow the generic one to be enabled in that > > case. This is more likely to cause less side-effects than the other way > > around. > > > > > One question though: if the generic pwm implementation does not set > > > HAVE_PWM, how can a driver check its presence? > > > > The driver depends on PWM. HAVE_PWM is the symbol for the legacy > > implementations, while PWM is the new PWM API symbol. > > I am still getting the mutliple definition errors from my powerpc > allyesconfg build. > > $ grep PWM .config > CONFIG_TWL6030_PWM=y > CONFIG_BACKLIGHT_PWM=y > CONFIG_PWM=y I don't see how that can happen. If you have CONFIG_TWL6030_PWM=y, then you should also have CONFIG_HAVE_PWM=y, which would in turn conflict with CONFIG_PWM=y. I'll have to fetch a powerpc toolchain and try to reproduce this. Thierry
Attachment:
pgpufOkV4Fn0N.pgp
Description: PGP signature
