On Mon 2014-01-13 10:02:58, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > This fixes: > > > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/built-in.o: In function `omap_reserve': > > /data/l/linux-n900/arch/arm/mach-omap2/common.c:36: undefined > > reference to `omap_fb_reserve_memblock' > > > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/common.c > > index 9beecde..857907f 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/common.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/common.c > > @@ -33,5 +33,7 @@ void __init omap_reserve(void) > > omap_dsp_reserve_sdram_memblock(); > > omap_secure_ram_reserve_memblock(); > > omap_barrier_reserve_memblock(); > > +#ifdef CONFIG_OMAP2_VRFB > > omap_fb_reserve_memblock(); > > +#endif > > } > > What is this patch against? omap_fb_reserve_memblock() doesn't exist > in v3.13-rc8, nor in -next. It is actually against -n900 tree, sorry about that. But this means that this regression likely will not hit -next :-). > Adding an ifdef here is likely the wrong thing anyway, there should be > a stub provided for !CONFIG_OMAP2_VRFB in the header file instead. Agreed. I found few more compile problems, but those are neither easy nor I expect them to happen commonly. In particular BIG_ENDIAN=y breaks flexcan, MMU=n break some core code, and CONFIG_ARM_KPROBES_TEST=y just does not work with my compiler here. Probably not worth trying to reproduce on vanilla tree? Thanks, Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
