From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752700AbYKSGgw (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:36:52 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751360AbYKSGgo (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:36:44 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:40687 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751245AbYKSGgn (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:36:43 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 22:36:01 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Bryan Wu Cc: torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Frysinger Subject: Re: [PATCH] Parport driver: disable pc-style parport on Blackfin systems Message-Id: <20081118223601.3458d76f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1226992362-30928-1-git-send-email-cooloney@kernel.org> References: <1226992362-30928-1-git-send-email-cooloney@kernel.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:12:42 +0800 Bryan Wu wrote: > From: Mike Frysinger > > Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger > Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu > --- > drivers/parport/Kconfig | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/parport/Kconfig b/drivers/parport/Kconfig > index 209b4a4..855f389 100644 > --- a/drivers/parport/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/parport/Kconfig > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ if PARPORT > config PARPORT_PC > tristate "PC-style hardware" > depends on (!SPARC64 || PCI) && !SPARC32 && !M32R && !FRV && \ > - (!M68K || ISA) && !MN10300 && !AVR32 > + (!M68K || ISA) && !MN10300 && !AVR32 && !BLACKFIN > ---help--- > You should say Y here if you have a PC-style parallel port. All > IBM PC compatible computers and some Alphas have PC-style Again, you overestimate our mind-reading abilities. Some poor schmuck has to work out whether we need this patch in one, some or all of 2.6.25.x, 2.6.26.x, 2.6.27.x, 2.6.28 and 2.6.29. This poor schmuck cannot work that out unless you tell him what the damn patch does! If it fixes the build then sure, 2.6.28. If it's just a dont-compile-this-because-we-dont-have-the-hardware thing then I'd say 2.6.29.