From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751456Ab3HTP0G (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 11:26:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:27982 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751111Ab3HTP0E (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Aug 2013 11:26:04 -0400 Message-ID: <1377012330.2039.5.camel@t520.redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: wire in generic parport.h From: Mark Salter To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: linux-kernel , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-arm-kernel Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 11:25:30 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <1376841688.11104.8.camel@t520.redhat.com> Organization: Red Hat, Inc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2013-08-18 at 22:25 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Mark Salter 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 > > > > 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//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