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

[schmitz <schmitz@biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de>]

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