Hello Tomi, On 12/22/2015 04:50 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > Hi Javier, > > On 21/12/15 20:26, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> The omapfb is failing to build in -next due missing declarations for >> dss_feat_get_supported_displays() and dss_feat_get_supported_outputs(): >> >> CC [M] drivers/video/fbdev/omap2//omapfb/dss/dss.o >> drivers/video/fbdev/omap2//omapfb/dss/dss.c: In function 'dss_save_context': >> drivers/video/fbdev/omap2//omapfb/dss/dss.c:144:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'dss_feat_get_supported_displays' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >> >> Add the declaration for these functions in the dss_features.h header >> file to fix this compile error. >> >> Also, remove the functions export since are not used outside the driver. > > Thanks! > You are welcome. > Yep, I messed that up. I thought I had tested it, but apparently I only > tested the final for-next only for omapdrm, which does compile and work. > Yes, that's what I thought. > omapdss.h is the the only file still shared between omapdrm and omapfb > after the copy-omapdss-series (I'll work on omapdss.h later), and of > course there was a change to omapdss.h which broke the build. > > So I rebased the copy-omapdss-series on top of the rest of the omapdss > patches, and updated the "omapfb: copy omapdss & displays for omapfb" to > make a fresh copy of omapdss for omapfb. I think it's better to update > the series, rather than applying fixes for already confusing series. > I completely agree, maintaining bisectability is important. As I mentioned in my last email, I just posted in case you couldn't rework your branches for whatever reason. > I've pushed new version to my for-next branch. > Great, thanks! > Tomi > Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America -- 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
