From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sccrmhc15.comcast.net (sccrmhc15.comcast.net [204.127.200.85]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1EDB67BE3 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 13:00:07 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [2.6 patch] mark virt_to_bus/bus_to_virt as __deprecated on i386 From: Nicholas Miell To: Adrian Bunk In-Reply-To: <20061003015820.GG3278@stusta.de> References: <20061002214954.GD665@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <20061002234428.GE3278@stusta.de> <20061003012241.GF3278@stusta.de> <1159840091.2349.0.camel@entropy> <20061003015820.GG3278@stusta.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 19:55:00 -0700 Message-Id: <1159844100.2349.5.camel@entropy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Judith Lebzelter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 03:58 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 06:48:11PM -0700, Nicholas Miell wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 03:22 +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 01:44:28AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 02:49:54PM -0700, Judith Lebzelter wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hello: > > > > > > > > Hi Judith, > > > > > > > > > For the automated cross-compile builds at OSDL, powerpc 64-bit > > > > > 'allmodconfig' is failing. The warnings/errors below appear in > > > > > the 'modpost' stage of kernel compiles for 2.6.18 and -mm2 kernels. > > > > > > > > known for ages - the drivers need fixing. > > > > > > > > You might want to convince Andrew accepting my patch to make > > > > virt_to_bus/bus_to_virt give compile warnings on i386 for making > > > > people more aware of this problem... > > > >... > > > > > > In case anyone is interested, the patch is below. > > > > > > cu > > > Adrian > > > > > > > Won't this also cause warnings for valid arch-specific usage (i.e. in > > linux/arch/{i386,x86_64})? > > They aren't used under linux/arch/i386/ and my patch doesn't change x86_64. Sorry, for some reason I thought isa_bus_to_virt and isa_virt_to_bus were defined in terms of virt_to_bus/bus_to_virt instead of virt_to_phys/phys_to_virt. -- Nicholas Miell