Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the libata tree

2015-09-17 Thread Luis de Bethencourt
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 02:03:36PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Tejun, > > After merging the libata tree, today's linux-next build (powercp > allmodconfig) failed like this: > > drivers/ata/pata_macio.c:1347:1: error: 'pata_macio_patch' undeclared here > (not in a function) > drivers/ata/

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the libata tree

2014-04-24 Thread Tejun Heo
Hello, On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 11:17:54AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > After merging the libata tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 > allmodconfig) failed like this: > > drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c: In function 'ahci_platform_init_host': > drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c:317:20: warning:

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the libata tree

2014-02-26 Thread Tejun Heo
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 01:55:21PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Tejun, > > After merging the libata tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64 > allmodconfig) failed like this: > > drivers/ata/ahci_st.c: In function 'st_ahci_probe': > drivers/ata/ahci_st.c:159:8: error: implicit declaration of

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the libata tree

2013-08-27 Thread Tejun Heo
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 01:52:09PM +0800, Aaron Lu wrote: > From: Aaron Lu > Subject: [PATCH] ata: acpi: Remove ata_dev_acpi_handle stub in libata.h > > The ata_dev_acpi_handle is defined in libata-acpi.c and the only > external user is libata-zpodd.c, which is built when CONFIG_ATA_ACPI > is set

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the libata tree

2013-08-26 Thread Aaron Lu
On 08/27/2013 10:50 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Tejun, > > After merging the libata tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc > ppc64_defconfig) failed like this: > > In file included from drivers/ata/libata-pmp.c:14:0: > drivers/ata/libata.h:136:1: error: unknown type name 'acpi_handle' > st

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the libata tree

2013-08-19 Thread Tejun Heo
On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 08:18:55PM -0700, Terry Suereth wrote: > Per my original patch, "0x3x26" in code should be "0x3726" (as in the > unpatched version). I refer to "x26" in comments as a forward-looking > assumption, but AFAIK only 3726 and 3826 exist at this time. Heh... No idea how that hap

Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the libata tree

2013-08-18 Thread Terry Suereth
Per my original patch, "0x3x26" in code should be "0x3726" (as in the unpatched version). I refer to "x26" in comments as a forward-looking assumption, but AFAIK only 3726 and 3826 exist at this time. terry.suer...@gmail.com On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Tejun,