From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752300AbcEATqa (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 May 2016 15:46:30 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com ([74.125.82.49]:38783 "EHLO mail-wm0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752075AbcEATq2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 May 2016 15:46:28 -0400 Message-ID: <57265D11.8000801@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 01 May 2016 20:46:25 +0100 From: Sudip Mukherjee User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" , Greg Kroah-Hartman CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-parport@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] parport: parport_pc: PCI SIO access should also depend on SIO option References: <1461137991-3834-1-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> <20160430205640.GA9218@kroah.com> <20160501074512.GA27386@sudip-laptop> <57260D88.8030003@maciej.szmigiero.name> In-Reply-To: <57260D88.8030003@maciej.szmigiero.name> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 01 May 2016 03:07 PM, Maciej S. Szmigiero wrote: > Hi Greg, > Hi Sudip, > > On 01.05.2016 09:45, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 01:56:40PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 01:09:51PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: >>>> From: "Maciej S. Szmigiero" >>>> >>>> CONFIG_PARPORT_PC_SUPERIO toggles Super IO chip support in parport_pc >>>> code, however only code accessing SIO chip via ISA (or LPC) bus was >>>> conditional on it. >>>> >>>> This patch makes SIO chip accesses via PCI bus also dependent on this >>>> config option. >>>> >>>> It should be noted that Super IO support in parport_pc is needed only when >>>> firmware has failed to make parallel port available either via PNP or >>>> on standard I/O ranges and user has one of a few supported SIOs. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Maciej S. Szmigiero >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Hi Greg, >>>> This patch is not tested on any superio chip based hardware. (I also >>>> don't have one). >>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2227051.html >>>> >>>> I know you dislike adding #ifdef so its upto you. >>> >>> It's really a messy patch, surely there is a better solution. >> >> yes, might be. But without hardware, should i dare? > Other possibility that comes to my mind would be to split out all such > probing code to separate file and then either compile it or not > depending on CONFIG_PARPORT_PC_SUPERIO. I thought of this one, but the lack of hardware to test is the only reason I am hesitating. regards sudip