From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 00:30:21 -0800 To: Pantelis Antoniou Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Boris Bezlaj , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Status of linuxppc_2.5 Message-ID: <20030109083021.GA16190@pants.nu> References: <3E1BECD2.9060909@intracom.gr> <20030108173215.GA1002@bandit.kista.gajba.net> <1042049915.787.9.camel@zion.wanadoo.fr> <3E1D2F34.20908@intracom.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3E1D2F34.20908@intracom.gr> From: flar@pants.nu (Brad Boyer) Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 10:13:40AM +0200, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > I'm sorry, the patch is just trivial stuff needed > to get it to compile. I don't even have hardware > that applies to swim3 driver. I just added the > include for the header and modified the call > to ide_unregister to use the new calling convention. > > BTW ide_unregister was not exported in linux/ide.h > and so I added the prototype there. Maybe someone > should notify the maintainer of the IDE layer that > since this function is needed by the swim3 driver > it should be visible in the header? > Or we should use a new infrastructure? Is there a reason that the swim3 driver needs something from the IDE layer? I haven't tried 2.5 on my 7600 yet, but when I'm compiling a kernel for it, I never include IDE, since the motherboard doesn't have IDE hardware. Any machine old enough to use the swim3 driver is slow enough without any help... Brad Boyer flar@allandria.com ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/