Hi Michael,

On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 11:55 PM Michael Schmitz [off-list ref] wrote:

On 8/06/21 6:42 pm, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:

quoted

+#define isa_inb(port)      ((ISA_TYPE == ISA_TYPE_AG100) ? ((port) & 1 ? isa_inw((port) - 1) & 0xff : isa_inw(port) >> 8) : in_8(isa_itb(port))

quoted

quoted

This fails to compile due to a missing closing parenthesis.

Sorry - looks like brown paper bag time today. (I did say 'entirely
untested'? Didn't expect such a thorough review for a first RFC patch ...)

Sorry, I missed that part in the cover letter ;-)

I'll put it more prominently next time.

Ran all patches through checkpatch now, and I still get warnings and
even a few errors ('trailing statements should be on the next line').
All due to my keeping to the code style used in io_mm.h, as far as I
could see.

What's your preference - additions in new style, or keep the old style?

Please use the existing style, unless you're willing to modernize the
whole file in a separate patch.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds