Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 06 Aug 2002 10:23:56 -0700 | From | "Martin J. Bligh" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] NUMA-Q xquad_portio declaration |
| |
>> The STANDALONE thing? I'm not convinced that's really any cleaner, >> it makes even more of a mess of io.h than there was already (though >> we could consider that a lost cause ;-)). >> >> What's your objection to just throwing in a defn of xquad_portio? >> A preference for burying the messy stuff in header files? Seems to >> me that as you have to define STANDALONE now, the point is moot. > > Because you are assuming there will be -one- kind of wackomatic PC > system - IBM's. The chances are there will be more than one as other > vendors like HP, Compaq and Dell begin shipping stuff. Having > __STANDALONE__ works for all the cases instead of exporting xquad this > hpmagic that and compaq the other in an ever growing cess pit
OK, fair enough. Would a simpler approach to what you've done be to do in io.h something like:
#ifdef CONFIG_MULTIQUAD #ifdef STANDALONE #define xquad_portio 0 #else extern void *xquad_portio; /* Where the IO area was mapped */ #endif #endif /* CONFIG_MULTIQUAD */
Or something along these lines ... ? Would make the changeset somewhat smaller. Seems to work from 30 seconds thought, but haven't tried it (yet).
M.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |