[PATCH] ARM: SMDK6410: Fix build with WM1190 disabled and WM1192 enabled

Avoid relying on implicit inclusion of machine.h

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <redacted>
Cc: stable at kernel.org
---
 arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-smdk6410.c |    1 +
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-smdk6410.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-smdk6410.c
index c8a84be..e7b40ba 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-smdk6410.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c64xx/mach-smdk6410.c

@@ -28,6 +28,7 @@
 #include <linux/delay.h>
 #include <linux/smsc911x.h>
 #include <linux/regulator/fixed.h>
+#include <linux/regulator/machine.h>
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_SMDK6410_WM1190_EV1
 #include <linux/mfd/wm8350/core.h>

-- 
1.7.2.3

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 05:27:09PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

Why is this a -stable patch?  Is the build broken somehow right now in a
released kernel without this patch?

confused,

greg k-h

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:15:07AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 05:27:09PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

+#include <linux/regulator/machine.h>

Why is this a -stable patch?  Is the build broken somehow right now in a
released kernel without this patch?

I believe the build breakage affects existing released kernels with the
appropriate set of configuration options chosen (1192 enabled and 1190
disabled), yes.  This is a pretty obscure combination so it's unlikely
anyone will run into it in practice.

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 07:46:56PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:15:07AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 05:27:09PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

quoted

+#include <linux/regulator/machine.h>

quoted

Why is this a -stable patch?  Is the build broken somehow right now in a
released kernel without this patch?

I believe the build breakage affects existing released kernels with the
appropriate set of configuration options chosen (1192 enabled and 1190
disabled), yes.  This is a pretty obscure combination so it's unlikely
anyone will run into it in practice.

Ok, then it probably shouldn't be a -stable patch :)

thanks,

greg k-h

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:54:18AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 07:46:56PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:

quoted

I believe the build breakage affects existing released kernels with the
appropriate set of configuration options chosen (1192 enabled and 1190
disabled), yes.  This is a pretty obscure combination so it's unlikely
anyone will run into it in practice.

Ok, then it probably shouldn't be a -stable patch :)

Oh, OK.  It seemed like it was sufficiently safe to make the risk/value
for the change reasonable.