[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1377012330.2039.5.camel@t520.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 11:25:30 -0400
From: Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: wire in generic parport.h
On Sun, 2013-08-18 at 22:25 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com> wrote:
> > The arm64 port doesn't provide a parport.h which causes a build failure
> > with some configurations:
> >
> > drivers/parport/parport_pc.c:67:25: fatal error: asm/parport.h: No such file or directory
> > #include <asm/parport.h>
> >
> > This patch wires in the generic parport.h for arm64.
>
> Can arm64 have a PC-style parport?
>
> If not, you're better off disabling it in drivers/parport/Kconfig.
>
> You will receive bonus points for introducing ARCH_MAY_HAVE_PC_PARPORT,
> cfr. ARCH_MAY_HAVE_PC_FDC.
Okay, I have two versions of the patch. One which follows the PC_FDC
patch and adds something like this to arch/<somearch>/Kconfig:
config ARCH_MAY_HAVE_PC_PARPORT
def_bool y
The other version adds:
config ARCH_MAY_HAVE_PC_PARPORT
bool
to arch/Kconfig (or maybe that should be in drivers/parport/Kconfig) so
that the various arches just need to select it.
Is there any preference for one over the other?
--Mark
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists