On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 04:18:46PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Thierry, > > On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 08:11:15 +0200 Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > CONFIG_HAVE_PWM only exists on arm, mips and unicore32 ... so the "select > HAVE_PWM" will not do anything on any other architecture. So one option would be to add HAVE_PWM on powerpc, or alternatively to explicitly add a conflict to the TWL6030_PWM symbol (and any others that implement the legacy API). I'd think the second alternative is preferable and actually matches what Arnd proposed previously. Maybe this was exactly the reason he suggested that solution in the first place. Thierry
Attachment:
pgp68sawrD57C.pgp
Description: PGP signature
