Re: [PATCH -next] mtd: fsl-quadspi: Never build on SPARC

[Guenter Roeck]

On 10/23/2015 09:31 AM, Han Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 8:13 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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/

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/