>
> >-#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_NETWINDER
> >+#ifdef CONFIG_HOST_FOOTBRIDGE
> >+if (machine_is_netwinder() || machine_is_my_board()) {
> > [.../...]
> >+}
>
> That looks OK to me. If CONFIG_ARCH_NETWINDER is not set then
> machine_is_netwinder() will expand to a constant 0 and gcc will probably leave
> out the code inside the if in any case.
>
> >I've not yet figured out what this added IDE code does (and why it's only
> >defined for the netwinder), but I'm still having a problem with the
> >second IDE controller of the winbond, which is still giving me
> >lost_interrupts.
>
> The NetWinder doesn't use the secondary IDE so this has probably not been
> tested. What interrupt do you think the secondary controller should be using?
>
> I'm also not sure why there are basically two different versions of
> the code for this chip. I think the original version was written by the
> PowerPC guys so you should probably talk to them and find out whether the two
> can be somehow combined.
>
> p.
>
>
> unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
