On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Andres Salomon <dilinger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 14:59:53 -0700 > Andres Salomon <dilinger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 05:39:59 +0900 >> Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:48 AM, Andres Salomon >> > <dilinger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > Hi Grant, >> > > >> > > I'm assuming the sparc patches can go through your tree as well. >> > > Please let me know if anything else needs to happen, now that we >> > > have an ACK from davem. >> > >> > Did the phandle -> types.h issues get sorted out? I can't remember. >> >> The relevant thread was here: >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/140991/ >> >> I found Sam's initial comment unclear, so I asked for clarification >> (specifying that we didn't need phandle to be exported to userspace); >> his response was: >> >> "So the above looks good considerign that userspace >> so far does not require ihanlde/phandle." >> >> I left it open-ended regarding whether or not userspace might want >> phandle/ihandle to be exported (that's more a question for you >> flat devicetree folks :) , but for my purposes not having it exposed >> to userspace is just fine. > > > > So yeah, please let me know if there's anything outstanding that I > missed that would keep the patches from getting merged. Okay, I'm confused. As you say, asm/openprom.h is exported. None of openprom.h is protect with __KERNEL__, so all of it gets exposed to userspace. You're patch adds phandle to the __KERNEL__ protected section of types.h, which means that it is unavailable to userspace. In which case anything from userspace including asm/openprom.h will fail to compile, or am I missing something? g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
