On Sun, 2013-08-18 at 22:25 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Mark Salter <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The arm64 port doesn't provide a parport.h which causes a build failure
> > with some configurations:
> >
> > drivers/parport/parport_pc.c:67:25: fatal error: asm/parport.h: No such
> > file or directory
> > #include <asm/parport.h>
> >
> > This patch wires in the generic parport.h for arm64.
>
> Can arm64 have a PC-style parport?
>
> If not, you're better off disabling it in drivers/parport/Kconfig.
>
> You will receive bonus points for introducing ARCH_MAY_HAVE_PC_PARPORT,
> cfr. ARCH_MAY_HAVE_PC_FDC.
Okay, I have two versions of the patch. One which follows the PC_FDC
patch and adds something like this to arch/<somearch>/Kconfig:
config ARCH_MAY_HAVE_PC_PARPORT
def_bool y
The other version adds:
config ARCH_MAY_HAVE_PC_PARPORT
bool
to arch/Kconfig (or maybe that should be in drivers/parport/Kconfig) so
that the various arches just need to select it.
Is there any preference for one over the other?
--Mark
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
