Re: [PATCH] arch: m68k: include: asm: the 3rd parameter of 'insl' and 'outsl' need '<< 2'

schmitz
2013-06-05T07:26:17Z

Chen,
> On 06/03/2013 06:48 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>
>>>>>> This _only_ applies to use of insl/outsl macros in parport_pc.h, which
>>>>>> is only used by Q40 on m68k. I see no reason to change anything in io.h
>>>>>> to cope with this warning.
>>>>>>
>
> I guess your meaning is :
>
> ----------------------------diff begin----------------------------------
>
> diff --git a/arch/m68k/include/asm/parport.h b/arch/m68k/include/asm/parport.h
> index 5ea75e6..dd1672a 100644
> --- a/arch/m68k/include/asm/parport.h
> +++ b/arch/m68k/include/asm/parport.h
> @@ -11,9 +11,20 @@
> #ifndef _ASM_M68K_PARPORT_H
> #define _ASM_M68K_PARPORT_H 1
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_Q40 /* for Q40, need redefine insl/outsl */
> +
> +#ifdef insl
> +#undef insl
> +#endif
> #define insl(port,buf,len) isa_insb(port,buf,(len)<<2)
> +
> +#ifdef outsl
> +#undef outsl
> +#endif
> #define outsl(port,buf,len) isa_outsb(port,buf,(len)<<2)
>
> +#endif /* CONFIG_Q40 */
> +
> /* no dma, or IRQ autoprobing */
> static int parport_pc_find_isa_ports (int autoirq, int autodma);
> static int parport_pc_find_nonpci_ports (int autoirq, int autodma)
>
> ----------------------------diff end------------------------------------
>

No need for the #ifdef CONFIG_Q40 - Q40 is the only m68k subarch that
builds the parport_pc module (which includes parport.h), IIRC. Is that
correct, Thorsten?

>>>> It sounds reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> And excuse me, could you provide the related link directly ? I don't
>>>> know how to see the detail of 'loom.20130511T171757-995@post.gmane.org'.
>>>>
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-m68k/msg06041.html
>>
>
> OK, thanks. And sorry for replying late (during these days, I have to
> do another things, and almost can not connect net).
>
>
Thanks indeed for the link, Geert. I haven't yet had time to test
whether the io.h patch would interfere with Atari IDE or other drivers's
use of these macros - maybe this weekend.
> It seems already has another related patch for it, and it is just
> applying.
>
> So need I send it again ?
>
>
I think Thorsten submitted a patch to that effect? If so, yours should
not be necessary.

Regards,

Michael