[patch nacked? 3/4] Update smc91x driver with ARM Versatile board info

[patch nacked? 3/4] Update smc91x driver with ARM Versatile board info

[akpm]

From: Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@plexity.net>

We need to specify a Versatile-specific SMC_IRQ_FLAGS value or the new
generic IRQ layer will complain thusly:

No IRQF_TRIGGER set_type function for IRQ 25 (<NULL>)

Signed-off-by: Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@plexity.net>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>

On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:50:40 +0100
Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 02:42:04PM -0700, akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> > We need to specify a Versatile-specific SMC_IRQ_FLAGS value or the new
> > generic IRQ layer will complain thusly:
> 
> I don't think I heard anything back from my previous suggestion that
> the IRQ flags are passed through the platform device IRQ resource.
> 
> Doing so would avoid adding yet another platform specific block into
> the file.
> 
> BTW, Integrator platforms will also suffer from this, which will add
> another ifdef to this header.
> 
> Let's do it right and arrange to pass these flags from the platform
> code.  It's not like they're in a critical path.

Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
---

 drivers/net/smc91x.h |   18 ++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)

diff -puN drivers/net/smc91x.h~update-smc91x-driver-with-arm-versatile-board-info drivers/net/smc91x.h
--- a/drivers/net/smc91x.h~update-smc91x-driver-with-arm-versatile-board-info
+++ a/drivers/net/smc91x.h
@@ -435,6 +435,24 @@ static inline void LPD7_SMC_outsw (unsig
 
 #include <asm/unit/smc91111.h>
 
+#elif	defined(CONFIG_ARCH_VERSATILE)
+
+#define SMC_CAN_USE_8BIT	1
+#define SMC_CAN_USE_16BIT	1
+#define SMC_CAN_USE_32BIT	1
+#define SMC_NOWAIT		1
+
+#define SMC_inb(a, r)		readb((a) + (r))
+#define SMC_inw(a, r)		readw((a) + (r))
+#define SMC_inl(a, r)		readl((a) + (r))
+#define SMC_outb(v, a, r)	writeb(v, (a) + (r))
+#define SMC_outw(v, a, r)	writew(v, (a) + (r))
+#define SMC_outl(v, a, r)	writel(v, (a) + (r))
+#define SMC_insl(a, r, p, l)	readsl((a) + (r), p, l)
+#define SMC_outsl(a, r, p, l)	writesl((a) + (r), p, l)
+
+#define SMC_IRQ_FLAGS		(0)
+
 #else
 
 /*
_

Re: [patch nacked? 3/4] Update smc91x driver with ARM Versatile board info

[Russell King]

Are you aware that smc91x.h _already_ contains a CONFIG_ARCH_VERSATILE
section?

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:40:48PM -0700, akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> From: Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@plexity.net>
> 
> We need to specify a Versatile-specific SMC_IRQ_FLAGS value or the new
> generic IRQ layer will complain thusly:
> 
> No IRQF_TRIGGER set_type function for IRQ 25 (<NULL>)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@plexity.net>
> Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
> Cc: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
> Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
> 
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 22:50:40 +0100
> Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 02:42:04PM -0700, akpm@linux-foundation.org wrote:
> > > We need to specify a Versatile-specific SMC_IRQ_FLAGS value or the new
> > > generic IRQ layer will complain thusly:
> > 
> > I don't think I heard anything back from my previous suggestion that
> > the IRQ flags are passed through the platform device IRQ resource.
> > 
> > Doing so would avoid adding yet another platform specific block into
> > the file.
> > 
> > BTW, Integrator platforms will also suffer from this, which will add
> > another ifdef to this header.
> > 
> > Let's do it right and arrange to pass these flags from the platform
> > code.  It's not like they're in a critical path.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> ---
> 
>  drivers/net/smc91x.h |   18 ++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
> 
> diff -puN drivers/net/smc91x.h~update-smc91x-driver-with-arm-versatile-board-info drivers/net/smc91x.h
> --- a/drivers/net/smc91x.h~update-smc91x-driver-with-arm-versatile-board-info
> +++ a/drivers/net/smc91x.h
> @@ -435,6 +435,24 @@ static inline void LPD7_SMC_outsw (unsig
>  
>  #include <asm/unit/smc91111.h>
>  
> +#elif	defined(CONFIG_ARCH_VERSATILE)
> +
> +#define SMC_CAN_USE_8BIT	1
> +#define SMC_CAN_USE_16BIT	1
> +#define SMC_CAN_USE_32BIT	1
> +#define SMC_NOWAIT		1
> +
> +#define SMC_inb(a, r)		readb((a) + (r))
> +#define SMC_inw(a, r)		readw((a) + (r))
> +#define SMC_inl(a, r)		readl((a) + (r))
> +#define SMC_outb(v, a, r)	writeb(v, (a) + (r))
> +#define SMC_outw(v, a, r)	writew(v, (a) + (r))
> +#define SMC_outl(v, a, r)	writel(v, (a) + (r))
> +#define SMC_insl(a, r, p, l)	readsl((a) + (r), p, l)
> +#define SMC_outsl(a, r, p, l)	writesl((a) + (r), p, l)
> +
> +#define SMC_IRQ_FLAGS		(0)
> +
>  #else
>  
>  /*
> _

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:

Re: [patch nacked? 3/4] Update smc91x driver with ARM Versatile board info

[Andrew Morton]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:42:55 +0100
Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> Are you aware that smc91x.h _already_ contains a CONFIG_ARCH_VERSATILE
> section?
> 

Are you aware that I don't maintain arm, net drivers or smc91x.h?

Are you aware that smartarse rhetorical questions are exceedingly
irritating?

I shall drop the patch - thank you for your help.

Re: [patch nacked? 3/4] Update smc91x driver with ARM Versatile board info

[Russell King]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 04:08:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:42:55 +0100
> Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Are you aware that smc91x.h _already_ contains a CONFIG_ARCH_VERSATILE
> > section?
> > 
> 
> Are you aware that I don't maintain arm, net drivers or smc91x.h?
> 
> Are you aware that smartarse rhetorical questions are exceedingly
> irritating?

Sigh.  That's a fucking annoying response to my perfectly legitimate
question.

Screw you.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:

Re: [patch nacked? 3/4] Update smc91x driver with ARM Versatile board info

[Andrew Morton]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:41:36 +0100
Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 04:08:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:42:55 +0100
> > Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > > Are you aware that smc91x.h _already_ contains a CONFIG_ARCH_VERSATILE
> > > section?
> > > 
> > 
> > Are you aware that I don't maintain arm, net drivers or smc91x.h?
> > 
> > Are you aware that smartarse rhetorical questions are exceedingly
> > irritating?
> 
> Sigh.  That's a fucking annoying response to my perfectly legitimate
> question.
> 

That is a fake response.  You have no possible interest in what I or
Deepak are or are not aware of.  You just chose it as an opportunity
to be snooty, arrgoant and condescending.

I still don't know if the patch (or some variation of it) is still
needed - that's how useless your response was.

It's in your hands now.  If it is still needed then please apply it,
perhaps after suitable modification.

Re: [patch nacked? 3/4] Update smc91x driver with ARM Versatile board info

[Russell King]

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 04:51:14PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 00:41:36 +0100
> Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 04:08:58PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 23:42:55 +0100
> > > Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Are you aware that smc91x.h _already_ contains a CONFIG_ARCH_VERSATILE
> > > > section?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Are you aware that I don't maintain arm, net drivers or smc91x.h?
> > > 
> > > Are you aware that smartarse rhetorical questions are exceedingly
> > > irritating?
> > 
> > Sigh.  That's a fucking annoying response to my perfectly legitimate
> > question.
> > 
> 
> That is a fake response.  You have no possible interest in what I or
> Deepak are or are not aware of.  You just chose it as an opportunity
> to be snooty, arrgoant and condescending.

You're the one being extremely stupid here.  I've said why I asked the
question, you won't accept that, so there's no point discussing it
anymore.

So I've nothing more to add here.  Do what you want with the patch.  I
don't care.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:

Re: [patch nacked? 3/4] Update smc91x driver with ARM Versatile board info

[David Woodhouse]

On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 23:42 +0100, Russell King wrote:

> From: Deepak Saxena <dsaxena@plexity.net>
> > We need to specify a Versatile-specific SMC_IRQ_FLAGS value or the new
> > generic IRQ layer will complain thusly:
> > 
> > No IRQF_TRIGGER set_type function for IRQ 25 (<NULL>)

> smc91x.h _already_ contains a CONFIG_ARCH_VERSATILE section

I think the point here is that there is already a section for this board
in the driver, so any patch which adds it _again_ is wrong.

It seems to have existing definitions for everything that this patch
adds, all of which are duplicates except SMC_IRQ_FLAGS, which is defined
as (0) in this patch but as (-1) in the existing driver.

So this patch should be dropped -- if there's a need to change the
definition of SMC_IRQ_FLAGS to 0, that's a one-line patch which needs a
more appropriate comment.

-- 
David Woodhouse                            Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@intel.com                              Intel Corporation