Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 05 Jun 2013 19:24:48 +1200 | From | schmitz <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arch: m68k: include: asm: the 3rd parameter of 'insl' and 'outsl' need '<< 2' |
| |
Chen, > On 06/03/2013 06:48 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >>>>>> This _only_ applies to use of insl/outsl macros in parport_pc.h, which >>>>>> is only used by Q40 on m68k. I see no reason to change anything in io.h >>>>>> to cope with this warning. >>>>>> > > I guess your meaning is : > > ----------------------------diff begin---------------------------------- > > diff --git a/arch/m68k/include/asm/parport.h b/arch/m68k/include/asm/parport.h > index 5ea75e6..dd1672a 100644 > --- a/arch/m68k/include/asm/parport.h > +++ b/arch/m68k/include/asm/parport.h > @@ -11,9 +11,20 @@ > #ifndef _ASM_M68K_PARPORT_H > #define _ASM_M68K_PARPORT_H 1 > > +#ifdef CONFIG_Q40 /* for Q40, need redefine insl/outsl */ > + > +#ifdef insl > +#undef insl > +#endif > #define insl(port,buf,len) isa_insb(port,buf,(len)<<2) > + > +#ifdef outsl > +#undef outsl > +#endif > #define outsl(port,buf,len) isa_outsb(port,buf,(len)<<2) > > +#endif /* CONFIG_Q40 */ > + > /* no dma, or IRQ autoprobing */ > static int parport_pc_find_isa_ports (int autoirq, int autodma); > static int parport_pc_find_nonpci_ports (int autoirq, int autodma) > > ----------------------------diff end------------------------------------ >
No need for the #ifdef CONFIG_Q40 - Q40 is the only m68k subarch that builds the parport_pc module (which includes parport.h), IIRC. Is that correct, Thorsten?
>>>> It sounds reasonable. >>>> >>>> And excuse me, could you provide the related link directly ? I don't >>>> know how to see the detail of 'loom.20130511T171757-995@post.gmane.org'. >>>> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-m68k/msg06041.html >> > > OK, thanks. And sorry for replying late (during these days, I have to > do another things, and almost can not connect net). > > Thanks indeed for the link, Geert. I haven't yet had time to test whether the io.h patch would interfere with Atari IDE or other drivers's use of these macros - maybe this weekend. > It seems already has another related patch for it, and it is just > applying. > > So need I send it again ? > > I think Thorsten submitted a patch to that effect? If so, yours should not be necessary.
Regards,
Michael
| |