linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: winbond: don't build on M68K

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a8e1bb2d-4993-0059-f850-438ab8ff69aa@infradead.org>
Date:   Sun, 17 Oct 2021 12:31:38 -0700
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Pierre Ossman <pierre@...man.eu>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: winbond: don't build on M68K

On 10/17/21 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 7:59 PM Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org> wrote:
>>
>> The Winbond MMC driver fails to build on ARCH=m68k so prevent
>> that build config. Silences these build errors:
>>
>> ../drivers/mmc/host/wbsd.c: In function 'wbsd_request_end':
>> ../drivers/mmc/host/wbsd.c:212:28: error: implicit declaration of function 'claim_dma_lock' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>    212 |                 dmaflags = claim_dma_lock();
>> ../drivers/mmc/host/wbsd.c:215:17: error: implicit declaration of function 'release_dma_lock'; did you mean 'release_task'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>>    215 |                 release_dma_lock(dmaflags);
>>
> 
> It looks like m68k and sparc declare this function in asm/floppy.h,
> while everyone
> else has it in asm/dma.h.
> 
> Not sure if it's worth fixing in a better way, but I suspect sparc
> would have the
> same issue here.

Ah, I should have seen that.
I'll look into a different patch.

thanks.
-- 
~Randy