[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090422172045.GA10958@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:20:45 +0200
From: Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>
To: Subrata Modak <subrata@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-net <linux-net@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan-Pascal van Best <janpascal@...best.org>,
Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Michael Hipp <hippm@...ormatik.uni-tuebingen.de>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
linux-next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
sachinp <sachinp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@...il.com>,
Linuxppc-dev <Linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [BUILD FAILURE 02/12] Next April 21 : PPC64 randconfig
[drivers/net/ni65.c]
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 09:45:47PM +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-04-22 at 00:20 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
> > I am observing this for the first time:
> >
> > CC drivers/net/ni65.o
> > drivers/net/ni65.c: In function ‘ni65_init_lance’:
> > drivers/net/ni65.c:585: error: implicit declaration of function
> > ‘isa_virt_to_bus’
> > drivers/net/ni65.c: In function ‘ni65_stop_start’:
> > drivers/net/ni65.c:757: error: implicit declaration of function
> > ‘isa_bus_to_virt’
> > make[2]: *** [drivers/net/ni65.o] Error 1
> > make[1]: *** [drivers/net] Error 2
> > make: *** [drivers] Error 2
> > ---
>
> Is there any specific dependency of whether this should be built only
> with certain archs ? As the case may be, i found the functions
> prototypes defined inside the arch specific headers, which definitely
> will not compile on PPC64:
>
> # find . -type f | xargs grep -in isa_virt_to_bus
> ./arch/alpha/include/asm/io.h:119:#define isa_virt_to_bus virt_to_bus
> ./arch/arm/include/asm/io.h:33:#define isa_virt_to_bus virt_to_phys
> ./arch/mips/include/asm/io.h:142:static inline unsigned long
> isa_virt_to_bus(volatile void * address)
> ./arch/parisc/include/asm/io.h:17:static inline unsigned long
> isa_virt_to_bus(void *addr) {
> ./arch/x86/include/asm/floppy.h:182:
> isa_virt_to_bus(addr) >= 0x1000000 ||
> ./arch/x86/include/asm/floppy.h:218: set_dma_addr(FLOPPY_DMA,
> isa_virt_to_bus(addr));
> ./arch/x86/include/asm/io.h:130:static inline unsigned int
> isa_virt_to_bus(volatile void *address)
But NI65 is properly guarded against ISA bus non-support already:
config NI65
tristate "NI6510 support"
depends on NET_VENDOR_RACAL && ISA && ISA_DMA_API
help
If you have a network (Ethernet) card of this type, say Y and read
the Ethernet-HOWTO, available from
<http://www.tldp.org/docs.html#howto>.
To compile this driver as a module, choose M here. The module
will be called ni65.
And powerpc _does_ offer ISA bus support:
./arch/powerpc/Kconfig:config ISA
./arch/powerpc/Kconfig: bool "Support for ISA-bus hardware"
./arch/powerpc/Kconfig: Find out whether you have ISA slots on your motherboard. ISA is the
Of course I'm 167% sure that nobody has ever tried those cards on ppc ;-),
but still that would be a _possibility_ that shouldn't be denied straight away.
> Then there should be some solution to the problem inside
> drivers/net/Kconfig
Indeed, which (given my above comments) should probably be to provide
some isa_virt_to_bus() functionality on powerpc or conditionally disable (yuck!)
use of these mechanisms in the drivers.
Anyway, it's certainly not a mistake per se to try to build those drivers on
an ISA-support-enabled powerpc platform.
Of course I'm not certain as to current status of e.g. ni5010, but OTOH I still
have some of those cards... (after all I'm the driver co-author)
Thanks for the heads-up,
Andreas Mohr
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists