Matti,

Thanks for the explanation.  Have a good trip.

and I noticed my typo/thinko first thing this morning...

~Randy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matti Aarnio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2000 1:14 AM
> To: Dunlap, Randy
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [linux-usb] HP USB CD-Writer Plus -- nearly works (?)
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2000 at 05:49:58PM -0700, Dunlap, Randy wrote:
> > Matt,
> 
>    Sorry, my name isn't "Matt", but "Matti", the ending vovel is
>    pronounced (but lets not dwell on this side issue here..)
>  
> > I am looking over the compiler warnings that you listed.
> > BTW, I'll take patches for them if you want to send them.
> ...
> > I don't see these warnings since I'm not using an Alpha.
> > 
> > > keybdev.c: In function `keybdev_event':
> > > keybdev.c:136: warning: implicit declaration of function 
> `emulate_raw'
> > > 
> > >   A declaration inclusion missing somewhere.
> > 
> > This one looks odd to me.  emulate_raw() is arch-dependent and
> > is defined 2 times before line 136.  One time is for
> > #if defined(CONFIG_X86) || defined(CONFIG_IA64) || \
> >   defined(CONFIG_ALPHA) || defined(CONFIG_MIPS)
> > 
> > and the other one is for
> > #elif defined(CONFIG_ADB_KEYBOARD)
> > 
> > So are you on an Alpha but CONFIG_ALPHA is not defined, or what?
> > Can you try to explain this?
> 
>       Proper subtest for this is:  defined(__alpha__)
>       (  and   defined(__mips__) -- I think  )
> 
>       While   arch/i386/config.in   file begins with
>               define_bool CONFIG_X86 y
>       same isn't true for arch/alpha/config.in, nor for
>       mips*, sparc*, ppc or m68k.
>       (IBM i390 isn't yet folded into 2.3 tree, so I can't say
>        where it stands -- not that it has uses for USB...)
> 
>       ARM seems to have  "CONFIG_ARM"
>       IA64 seems to have "CONFIG_IA64"
>       Super-H seems to have "CONFIG_SUPERH"
> 
>       Mostly this tells of genealogy of the  arch/xxxx/config.in
>       file; they are modelled after ia32, and are newer than
>       when ever i386 got that definition..
> 
>       I am not quite sure, should other architectures get
>       similar generic labels ?
> 
> > I'm still looking at the others.
> > 
> > ~Randy
> 
> /Matti Aarnio
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to