On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 06:33:51AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 02:36:22PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > > Compiling the at91rm9200_wdt.c driver without at91rm9200 > > support was leading to several errors: > > > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `at91_wdt_close': > > at91_adc.c:(.text+0xc9fe4): undefined reference to `at91_st_base' > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `at91_wdt_write': > > at91_adc.c:(.text+0xca004): undefined reference to `at91_st_base' > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `at91wdt_shutdown': > > at91_adc.c:(.text+0xca01c): undefined reference to `at91_st_base' > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `at91wdt_suspend': > > at91_adc.c:(.text+0xca038): undefined reference to `at91_st_base' > > drivers/built-in.o: In function `at91_wdt_open': > > at91_adc.c:(.text+0xca0cc): undefined reference to `at91_st_base' > > drivers/built-in.o:at91_adc.c:(.text+0xca2c8): more undefined references to > > `at91_st_base' follow > > > > So, reverting the modification of the "depends" Kconfig line > > introduced by patch a6a1bcd37 (watchdog: at91rm9200: add DT support) > > seems to be the good solution. > > > Really ? Why ? I mean, this was supposed to be for at91rm9200, wasn't it ? > And why would want try to compile a watchdog for at91rm9200 without at91rm9200 > support ? > > I understand there is a problem, I just don't see how removing that line would > solve it. > Me confused, sorry. I somehow thought you were removing the ARCH_AT91RM9200 dependency, not adding it. Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Guenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
