wt., 3 wrz 2019 o 06:26 Stephen Rothwell napisał(a):
>
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
> ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
>
> ld: drivers/ata/ahci.o:(.opd+0x150): multiple definition of
> `regulator_bulk_set_supply_names'; drivers/phy/phy-core.o
Hi all,
After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
ppc64_defconfig) failed like this:
ld: drivers/ata/ahci.o:(.opd+0x150): multiple definition of
`regulator_bulk_set_supply_names'; drivers/phy/phy-core.o:(.opd+0x3f0): first
defined here
ld: drivers/ata/ahci.o: in functi
Hi all,
After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
drivers/regulator/mt6358-regulator.c:5:10: fatal error:
linux/mfd/mt6358/registers.h: No such file or directory
#include
^~
Caused by commit
f67f
On 20.11.2018 3:49, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
> allmodconfig) failed like this:
>
> ERROR: "regulator_lock" [drivers/regulator/wm8350-regulator.ko] undefined!
> ERROR: "regulator_unlock" [drivers/regulator/wm8350-regul
Hi all,
After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
ERROR: "regulator_lock" [drivers/regulator/wm8350-regulator.ko] undefined!
ERROR: "regulator_unlock" [drivers/regulator/wm8350-regulator.ko] undefined!
ERROR: "regulator_unlock" [drivers/reg
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 09:30:04AM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Discarded that commit.
> The patch is still there ...
Only in the merge branch, it got dropped from the source branch but the
merge ended up not being rebuilt.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Hi Mark,
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:03:43 + Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:42:21PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > Caused by commit
> >
> > 524d339a9d6b ("regulator: anatop-regulator: constify regulator_ops
> > structure")
> >
> > I can only assume that this patch has
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 01:42:21PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Caused by commit
>
> 524d339a9d6b ("regulator: anatop-regulator: constify regulator_ops
> structure")
>
> I can only assume that this patch has been rebased since it was tested.
Discarded that commit.
signature.asc
Descrip
Hi all,
After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (arm
multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
drivers/regulator/anatop-regulator.c: In function 'anatop_regulator_probe':
drivers/regulator/anatop-regulator.c:310:24: error: assignment of member
'enable' in read-only object
anat
On 14 April 2015 at 19:40, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:22:41AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:07:06 -0700 Bjorn Andersson
>> wrote:
>
>> > Your patch looks correct and should preferrably be added to the drm
>> > tree, or the last patch in my series th
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:22:41AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:07:06 -0700 Bjorn Andersson
> wrote:
> > Your patch looks correct and should preferrably be added to the drm
> > tree, or the last patch in my series that drops the API wrapper should
> > be held back unti
Hi Bjorn,
On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 18:07:06 -0700 Bjorn Andersson
wrote:
>
> What Mark mean is basically that there shouldn't be any users of
> regulator_set_optimum_mode() for various reasons and we introduced
> regulator_set_load() to solve these, before any users popped up.
>
> Unfortunately we w
On Mon 13 Apr 16:44 PDT 2015, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 10:35:56 +0100 Mark Brown wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 02:33:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> >
> > > After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> > > multi_v7_defconfig)
Hi all,
On Thu, 9 Apr 2015 10:35:56 +0100 Mark Brown wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 02:33:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
> > After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> > multi_v7_defconfig)
> > failed like this:
>
> > drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c: In fun
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:33 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> multi_v7_defconfig)
> failed like this:
>
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c: In function 'dsi_host_regulator_disable':
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c:3
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 02:33:09PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (arm
> multi_v7_defconfig)
> failed like this:
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c: In function 'dsi_host_regulator_disable':
> drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c:330:4
Hi all,
After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (arm
multi_v7_defconfig)
failed like this:
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c: In function 'dsi_host_regulator_disable':
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/dsi/dsi_host.c:330:4: error: implicit declaration of
function 'regulator_set_optimum_mo
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 01:44:41PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> grep is your friend ...
Indeed :(
> This patch should be applied to your tree as it is based off v4.0-rc1
> already.
Applied, thanks.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi all,
After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (arm
multi_v7_defconfig) failed like this:
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/edp/edp_ctrl.c: In function 'edp_regulator_enable':
drivers/gpu/drm/msm/edp/edp_ctrl.c:335:2: error: implicit declaration of
function 'regulator_set_optimum_mode' [-W
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:33:16AM +0800, Chris Zhong wrote:
> Yes, I have modified the rk808.h, so rk808-regulator.c lacks some structure
> now.
> Please help me review the patch "[PATCH v10 3/3] regulator: RK808: Remove
> pdata from the regulator"
> It contains the corresponding changes.
...whi
On 09/10/2014 06:39 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:33:50PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c:312:18: warning: 'struct rk808_board'
declared inside parameter list
struct rk808_board *pdata)
Chris, as previously requested please se
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:33:50PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
>
>> drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c:312:18: warning: 'struct rk808_board'
>> declared inside parameter list
>>struct rk808_board *pdata)
>
> Chris, as previo
On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 06:33:50PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c:312:18: warning: 'struct rk808_board'
> declared inside parameter list
>struct rk808_board *pdata)
Chris, as previously requested please send me any changes needed to
update for th
Hi all,
After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (powerpc
allyesconfig) failed like this:
drivers/regulator/rk808-regulator.c:312:18: warning: 'struct rk808_board'
declared inside parameter list
struct rk808_board *pdata)
^
drivers/regulator/rk808-r
Hi all,
After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
drivers/regulator/mc13892-regulator.c: In function 'mc13892_regulator_probe':
drivers/regulator/mc13892-regulator.c:586:3: error: assignment of member
'set_mode' in read-only object
= mc
Hi all,
After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
drivers/regulator/act8865-regulator.c: In function 'act8865_pmic_probe':
drivers/regulator/act8865-regulator.c:291:13: error: 'act8846_matches'
undeclared (first use in this function)
ma
Hi all,
After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
drivers/built-in.o: In function `ltc3589_probe':
ltc3589.c:(.text+0xccf24): undefined reference to `devm_regmap_init_i2c'
drivers/built-in.o: In function `ltc3589_driver_init':
ltc3589.c:(.i
Hi all,
After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
In file included from /scratch/sfr/next/include/linux/cache.h:4:0,
from /scratch/sfr/next/include/linux/time.h:4,
from /scratch/sfr/next/include/linux/stat.
On Monday 01 July 2013 02:13 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 11:37:09AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
commit 1ffb0b (mfd: palmas: Add SMPS10_BOOST feature) had used PALMAS_REG_SMPS10
and I dint have that patch in my tree. Sorry, my bad.
Keerthy will send a fix for it.
Res
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 11:37:09AM +0530, Kishon Vijay Abraham I wrote:
> commit 1ffb0b (mfd: palmas: Add SMPS10_BOOST feature) had used
> PALMAS_REG_SMPS10
> and I dint have that patch in my tree. Sorry, my bad.
> Keerthy will send a fix for it.
Resubmit the patch, I've dropped it.
signature.
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 02:18:27PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Caused by commit 07a02e0b1a4f ("regulator: palmas: model SMPS10 as two
> regulators"). Clearly not build tested at all :-( Grep is your
> friend ...
That's odd, it's also not been caught by Fengguang's system which
generally ge
+Keerthy
On Monday 01 July 2013 09:48 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi all,
After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c: In function 'palmas_regulators_probe':
drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c:850:8:
Hi all,
After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c: In function 'palmas_regulators_probe':
drivers/regulator/palmas-regulator.c:850:8: error: 'PALMAS_REG_SMPS10'
undeclared (first use in this function)
Hi all,
After merging the regulator tree, today's linux-next build (x86_64
allmodconfig) failed like this:
ERROR: "regulator_allow_bypass" [drivers/extcon/extcon-arizona.ko] undefined!
Caused by commit e6647c416e4f ("extcon: arizona: Use bypass mode for MICVDD").
I have used the regulator tree
34 matches
Mail list logo
