[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023053059-self-mangle-30b6@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 11:48:14 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Niklas Schnelle <schnelle@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 33/41] tty: serial: handle HAS_IOPORT dependencies
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 01:00:29PM +0200, Niklas Schnelle wrote:
> In a future patch HAS_IOPORT=n will result in inb()/outb() and friends
> not being declared. We thus need to add HAS_IOPORT as dependency for
> those drivers using them unconditionally. For 8250 based drivers some
> support MMIO only use so fence only the parts requiring I/O ports.
Why can't you have dummy inb()/outb() so we don't need these #ifdefs all
over the place in .c files? Was that documented somewhere? We do that
for other driver/hardware apis, why are these so special they don't
deserve that?
Otherwise this makes old drivers really messy with these additional
#ifdefs, something we never wanted to do in .c files.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists