Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:26:35 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ssb: Fix DMA-API compilation for non-PCI systems |
| |
On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 22:23:09 +0100 Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de> wrote:
> On Thursday 06 November 2008 22:16:00 Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 15:49, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > --- wireless-testing.orig/include/linux/ssb/ssb.h 2008-08-01 17:26:05.000000000 +0200 > > > +++ wireless-testing/include/linux/ssb/ssb.h 2008-11-06 21:45:37.000000000 +0100 > > > @@ -427,12 +427,16 @@ static inline int ssb_dma_mapping_error( > > > { > > > switch (dev->bus->bustype) { > > > case SSB_BUSTYPE_PCI: > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SSB_PCIHOST > > > return pci_dma_mapping_error(dev->bus->host_pci, addr); > > > +#endif > > > + break; > > > case SSB_BUSTYPE_SSB: > > > return dma_mapping_error(dev->dev, addr); > > > default: > > > - __ssb_dma_not_implemented(dev); > > > + break; > > > } > > > > all these functions now read: > > default: break; > > seems kind of pointless ... why not just drop that case completely > > Because the compiler complains "not handled all cases...". > And yes, we do want to trigger __ssb_dma_not_implemented() for > these cases.
Please always quote the compiler error messages when fixing build errors. It is unobvious what the problems are here. I could struggle away and create a CONFIG_PCI=n build, but what .c file do I need to compile? Dunno.
All those ifdefs are nasty. Couldn't we do something like:
#ifdef CONFIG_SSB_PCIHOST static inline int ssb_pci_dma_mapping_error(structy pci_dev *host_pci, dma_addr_t addr) { return pci_dma_mapping_error(host_pci, addr); }
#else
static inline int ssb_pci_dma_mapping_error(structy pci_dev *host_pci, dma_addr_t addr) { return -ENOSYS; }
#endif
(etc)
and then leave the __ssb_dma_not_implemented() calls under the default: case in the switch statements?
| |