On Tuesday 03 July 2012, Thierry Reding wrote: > 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. It's not what I was thinking of explicitly, but it's a good reason nonetheless ;-) Arnd -- 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
