On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:45:11 -0400 Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:25:37PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > This completely bogus. readb() should be present on M68K, fix the > > platform to implement readb() for MMIO, even if your MMIO readb is a > > moveb instruction. > > > > check_signature is relevant for anything with MMIO space (for example you > > can legitimately want to check_signature a MAC68K Nubus ROM). > > > > S/390 is a bit of a special case as no S/390 usage of check_signature > > appears sane but equally it isn't used so you can stub it out. > > This is a problem for UML too. > > I have a patch in my tree, which basically stubs readb, waiting to see > how this is fixed for the other arches. > What a mess. I guess we could add an empty readb() implementation to lib/lib.a so the arch will pick that up if all else fails. But it's pretty stinky. And it won't work either because we don't know at compile-time to declare the prototype for that thing appropriately. So... what's the proper fix here? "The arch must implement readb"? That's bad: if the arch really cannot implement readb(), we want builds to fail if someone tries to use it. I think I'll go shopping instead. - 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/
