* Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [160722 07:02]: > [Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: mach-omap2: remove bogus "or_module" from rx51-peripherals] On 21/07/2016 (Thu 23:41) Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > * Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [160719 21:17]: > > > During unrelated work, attempting to remove an include of the > > > linux/module.h in favour of "struct module;" in order to reduce > > > header entanglement, we found doing so caused a build failure in > > > this file. > > > > We're planning to drop this file after v4.8-rc1 after I've > > verified that legacy booting still works at v4.8-rc1. > > > > Are you OK if I pick this patch into my omap-for-v4.8/legacy > > branch? Or if you have a minimal immutable branch against v4.7-rc1 > > with just this patch I can merge it in no problem. > > Is the legacy branch a contingency plan for the case where legacy > booting doesn't work? If so, that should be OK. Well it's just a branch of omap legacy booting related patches for v4.8. But looking at it now, looks like I already pushed out the removal of the last two remaining board files before I took few weeks off. But I did not add it to Linux next to keep things working until -rc1. > Having the patch present, or having the file deleted both take care of > my concern -- which was was introducing build regressions when adding > the gpio header cleanup into for-4.9 content. OK. As I've already pushed out the board-*.c removal branch, I suggest we just drop the $subject patch to avoid a merge conflict. Regards, Tony -- 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
