Problems w/ CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE

Problems w/ CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE

[Steven Scholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 436 bytes --]

Hi there,

I just noticed that the vanilla 2.4.22 does not compile with
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE:

drivers/ide/idedriver.o: In function `ide_timer_expiry':
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0xaa30): undefined reference to `ide_ack_intr'
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0xaa30): relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_REL24

It's the same for the BK trees.

The attached patch fixes that.

Please apply and forward it.

Thanks a million,

Steven

[-- Attachment #2: MPC8xx_IDE.fix --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 340 bytes --]

--- include/asm-ppc/ide.h.FIX	Mon Sep 15 09:35:25 2003
+++ include/asm-ppc/ide.h	Mon Sep 15 09:36:17 2003
@@ -110,6 +110,7 @@
  */
 #if (defined CONFIG_APUS || defined CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE)
 #define IDE_ARCH_ACK_INTR 1
+#define ide_ack_intr(hwif)	((hwif)->hw.ack_intr ? (hwif)->hw.ack_intr(hwif) : 1)
 #endif

 #endif /* __KERNEL__ */

Re: Problems w/ CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE

[Steven Scholz]

Steven Scholz wrote:

> I just noticed that the vanilla 2.4.22 does not compile with
> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE:
>
> drivers/ide/idedriver.o: In function `ide_timer_expiry':
> drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0xaa30): undefined reference to
> `ide_ack_intr'
> drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0xaa30): relocation truncated to fit:
> R_PPC_REL24
>
> It's the same for the BK trees.

The BK linuxppc_2_4_devel tree has another problem as well:

drivers/ide/idedriver.o: In function `probe_hwif':
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): undefined reference to `wait_hwif_ready'
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_REL24
wait_hwif_ready

ide-probe.c contains a call for wait_hwif_ready(), which is not defined.
This function exisists in the vanilla source though!

I supposed something went wrong while merging/syncing the IDE changes from the
official tree...

Steven


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Problems w/ CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE

[Hubert Figuiere]

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:31, Steven Scholz wrote:

> The BK linuxppc_2_4_devel tree has another problem as well:
>
> drivers/ide/idedriver.o: In function `probe_hwif':
> drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): undefined reference to `wait_hwif_ready'
> drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_REL24
> wait_hwif_ready
>
> ide-probe.c contains a call for wait_hwif_ready(), which is not defined.
> This function exisists in the vanilla source though!
>
> I supposed something went wrong while merging/syncing the IDE changes from the
> official tree...

Change 'wait_hwif_ready' by 'ide_wait_hwif_ready' in both ide-probe.c
and ide.c

Trivial, no ?

Hub
--
Hubert Figuière - Freebox SA. - +33 1 73 50 2 563
AIM/Yahoo!: hfiguiere, ICQ: 307453487

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Problems w/ CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE

[Steven Scholz]

Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:31, Steven Scholz wrote:
>
>
>>The BK linuxppc_2_4_devel tree has another problem as well:
>>
>>drivers/ide/idedriver.o: In function `probe_hwif':
>>drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): undefined reference to `wait_hwif_ready'
>>drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_REL24
>>wait_hwif_ready
>>
>>ide-probe.c contains a call for wait_hwif_ready(), which is not defined.
>>This function exisists in the vanilla source though!
>>
>>I supposed something went wrong while merging/syncing the IDE changes from the
>>official tree...
>
>
> Change 'wait_hwif_ready' by 'ide_wait_hwif_ready' in both ide-probe.c
> and ide.c
Ok. This obviously fixes it.
I just noticed that I might have used the wrong source tree.

So which is the BK tree to use:

linuxppc_2_4_devel or linuxppc-2.4 ???

Thanks,

Steven


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Problems w/ CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 02:29:05PM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:

> Hubert Figuiere wrote:
> >On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:31, Steven Scholz wrote:
> >
> >>The BK linuxppc_2_4_devel tree has another problem as well:
> >>
> >>drivers/ide/idedriver.o: In function `probe_hwif':
> >>drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): undefined reference to
> >>`wait_hwif_ready'
> >>drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): relocation truncated to fit:
> >>R_PPC_REL24
> >>wait_hwif_ready
> >>
> >>ide-probe.c contains a call for wait_hwif_ready(), which is not defined.
> >>This function exisists in the vanilla source though!
> >>
> >>I supposed something went wrong while merging/syncing the IDE changes
> >>from the
> >>official tree...
> >
> >Change 'wait_hwif_ready' by 'ide_wait_hwif_ready' in both ide-probe.c
> >and ide.c
> Ok. This obviously fixes it.
> I just noticed that I might have used the wrong source tree.
>
> So which is the BK tree to use:
>
> linuxppc_2_4_devel or linuxppc-2.4 ???

It depends on where what you want to use exists.  If something is in
_devel and not in linuxppc-2.4, patches to move features over one at a
time would be happily reviewed.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Problems w/ CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE

[Steven Scholz]

Tom,

>>I just noticed that I might have used the wrong source tree.
>>
>>So which is the BK tree to use:
>>
>>linuxppc_2_4_devel or linuxppc-2.4 ???
>
>
> It depends on where what you want to use exists.  If something is in
> _devel and not in linuxppc-2.4, patches to move features over one at a
> time would be happily reviewed.

???
So which is the most recent?

http://www.penguinppc.org/dev/kernel.shtml calls linuxppc_2_4_devel the "old PPC
development tree" !?

Steven


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Problems w/ CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:42:37AM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:
> Tom,
>
> >>I just noticed that I might have used the wrong source tree.
> >>
> >>So which is the BK tree to use:
> >>
> >>linuxppc_2_4_devel or linuxppc-2.4 ???
> >
> >
> >It depends on where what you want to use exists.  If something is in
> >_devel and not in linuxppc-2.4, patches to move features over one at a
> >time would be happily reviewed.
>
> ???
> So which is the most recent?

Aside from possible changes to match upstream subsystem rewrites (such
as IDE) there hasn't been any changes in linuxppc-2.4 specific to 8xx
that didn't happen in 2_4_devel.

> http://www.penguinppc.org/dev/kernel.shtml calls linuxppc_2_4_devel the
> "old PPC development tree" !?

That's correct.  It's becoming more of a pain to maintain or own set of
trees to track 2.4 when Marcelo uses BK as well.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Problems w/ CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE

[Steven Scholz]

Tom,

>>>>So which is the BK tree to use:
>>>>linuxppc_2_4_devel or linuxppc-2.4 ???
>
> Aside from possible changes to match upstream subsystem rewrites (such
> as IDE) there hasn't been any changes in linuxppc-2.4 specific to 8xx
> that didn't happen in 2_4_devel.
>
>>http://www.penguinppc.org/dev/kernel.shtml calls linuxppc_2_4_devel the
>>"old PPC development tree" !?
>
> That's correct.  It's becoming more of a pain to maintain or own set of
> trees to track 2.4 when Marcelo uses BK as well.

I suppose we need both trees. Otherwise you would have got rid of one. Right? :o)

Steven


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Problems w/ CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE

[Tom Rini]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 11:25:43AM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:
> Tom,
>
> >>>>So which is the BK tree to use:
> >>>>linuxppc_2_4_devel or linuxppc-2.4 ???
> >
> >Aside from possible changes to match upstream subsystem rewrites (such
> >as IDE) there hasn't been any changes in linuxppc-2.4 specific to 8xx
> >that didn't happen in 2_4_devel.
> >
> >>http://www.penguinppc.org/dev/kernel.shtml calls linuxppc_2_4_devel the
> >>"old PPC development tree" !?
> >
> >That's correct.  It's becoming more of a pain to maintain or own set of
> >trees to track 2.4 when Marcelo uses BK as well.
>
> I suppose we need both trees. Otherwise you would have got rid of one.
> Right? :o)

With an infinite amount of time, there would be only one tree.  Patches
to move things, one at a time, in logical chunks, to linux-2.4 happily
reviewed.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/