Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH -next] mtd: fsl-quadspi: Never build on SPARC | From | Guenter Roeck <> | Date | Fri, 23 Oct 2015 09:53:24 -0700 |
| |
On 10/23/2015 09:31 AM, Han Xu wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote: >> On 10/22/2015 06:07 PM, Brian Norris wrote: >>> >>> + Han >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 07:31:46AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>> >>>> Attempts to build fsl-quadspi on SPARC fail with >>>> >>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/fsl-quadspi.c: In function 'fsl_qspi_init_lut': >>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/fsl-quadspi.c:369:1: error: >>>> 'LUT_0' undeclared (first use in this function) >>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/fsl-quadspi.c:418:1: error: >>>> pasting "LUT_" and "(" does not give a valid preprocessing token >>>> drivers/mtd/spi-nor/fsl-quadspi.c:418:2: error: >>>> implicit declaration of function 'LUT_' >>> >>> >>> I don't think this is only a SPARC problem. The macro concatenation is >>> generally suspect. >>> >>> I see that READ and WRITE are problems at least. If something like >>> <linux/fs.h> gets included somehow, then these tokens resolve to >>> integers or expressions before they fall through to literal >>> concatentation, so we get 'LUT_0' or 'LUT_(1ULL << __REQ_WRITE)' instead >>> of 'LUT_READ' and 'LUT_WRITE'. > Hi Brian > We have two options, either undef READ and WRITE before these macros > or change the LUT_READ to LUT_FSLREAD and same as WRITE. So what's > your opinion? Thanks.
Undef sounds like a really bad solution to me.
Guenter
>>> >> You are right, that deserves a better fix. I'll leave it up to you. >> >> Thanks, >> Guenter >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________________ >> Linux MTD discussion mailing list >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/ >
| |