On 11/09/2012 05:50 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@xxxxxx> [121109 15:44]: >> >> On 11/09/2012 03:10 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@xxxxxx> [121109 08:31]: >>>> >>>> On 11/09/2012 10:22 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>> * Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@xxxxxx> [121109 08:21]: >>>>>> If the header soc.h is included more than once in a source (for example >>>>>> once directly by the source file and once indirectly by another header >>>>>> file), then the compiler will generate redefintion errors for the macros >>>>>> in soc.h. Prevent this by only allowing the content in soc.h to be >>>>>> included once. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@xxxxxx> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> Please note that I ran into this problem when rebasing my dmtimer fixes >>>>>> series [1] on Tony's Linux-OMAP master branch. I am including plat/cpu.h >>>>>> in dmtimer.h and I found several other files including dmtimer.h are also >>>>>> including soc.h and so generate a lot of errors. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=135231490218361&w=2 >>>>> >>>>> As these headers are private to mach-omap2, I'd rather not allow including >>>>> them more than once so we can eventually clean up the includes further. >>>>> >>>>> We should include the headers directly where used, except for the >>>>> legacy board-*.c files that will be going away anyways. >>>>> >>>>> Including the files directly should fix this easily, if not let me >>>>> know. >>>> >>>> The alternative fix is to ensure anyone including dmtimer.h also >>>> includes soc.h. However, I did not know if we should have such a >>>> dependency. If you are ok with that then that is what I will do for now. >>>> It is not a massive change. >>> >>> Do you mean anything under mach-omap2/*.c including dmtimer.h also >>> needs to also include soc.h? If sounds OK to me as long as we don't >>> need to include soc.h outside mach-omap2. >> >> Yes exactly. Right now dmtimer.h is including plat/cpu.h and so is >> indirectly including soc.h. The function omap_dm_timer_populate_errata() >> is using the cpu_is_xxxx macros. So maybe I should move this to into >> platform data. Is that better? > > I think I already fixed that up in the cleanup branch. I've now > merged that into the omap-for-v3.8/dt branch. The only remaining > cpu_is_omap usage there is: > > $ grep cpu_is_omap arch/arm/plat-omap/*.[chS] > > arch/arm/plat-omap/fb.c: if (cpu_is_omap24xx()) { > arch/arm/plat-omap/fb.c: } else if (cpu_is_omap34xx()) { > > So maybe see what needs to be patches on top of omap-for-v3.8/dt? Sorry, I meant in the fixes series I have posted for dmtimer, I am adding a new function called omap_dm_timer_populate_errata() that is using cpu_is_xxxx() [1]. I had done this a while back, but now I see that we want to get away from doing that right? I was planning on sending you a pull request for that series on Monday but now I am wondering if I should fix this now or later. I was hoping this series would make 3.8. Cheers Jon [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=135249008128365&w=2 -- 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
