Problems w/ CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE

Hi there,

I just noticed that the vanilla 2.4.22 does not compile with
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE:

drivers/ide/idedriver.o: In function `ide_timer_expiry':
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0xaa30): undefined reference to `ide_ack_intr'
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0xaa30): relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_REL24

It's the same for the BK trees.

The attached patch fixes that.

Please apply and forward it.

Thanks a million,

Steven

Steven Scholz wrote:

I just noticed that the vanilla 2.4.22 does not compile with
CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE:

drivers/ide/idedriver.o: In function `ide_timer_expiry':
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0xaa30): undefined reference to
`ide_ack_intr'
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0xaa30): relocation truncated to fit:
R_PPC_REL24

It's the same for the BK trees.

The BK linuxppc_2_4_devel tree has another problem as well:

drivers/ide/idedriver.o: In function `probe_hwif':
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): undefined reference to `wait_hwif_ready'
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_REL24
wait_hwif_ready

ide-probe.c contains a call for wait_hwif_ready(), which is not defined.
This function exisists in the vanilla source though!

I supposed something went wrong while merging/syncing the IDE changes from the
official tree...

Steven


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:31, Steven Scholz wrote:

The BK linuxppc_2_4_devel tree has another problem as well:

drivers/ide/idedriver.o: In function `probe_hwif':
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): undefined reference to `wait_hwif_ready'
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_REL24
wait_hwif_ready

ide-probe.c contains a call for wait_hwif_ready(), which is not defined.
This function exisists in the vanilla source though!

I supposed something went wrong while merging/syncing the IDE changes from the
official tree...

Change 'wait_hwif_ready' by 'ide_wait_hwif_ready' in both ide-probe.c
and ide.c

Trivial, no ?

Hub
--
Hubert Figuière - Freebox SA. - +33 1 73 50 2 563
AIM/Yahoo!: hfiguiere, ICQ: 307453487

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Hubert Figuiere wrote:

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:31, Steven Scholz wrote:

quoted

The BK linuxppc_2_4_devel tree has another problem as well:

drivers/ide/idedriver.o: In function `probe_hwif':
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): undefined reference to `wait_hwif_ready'
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_REL24
wait_hwif_ready

ide-probe.c contains a call for wait_hwif_ready(), which is not defined.
This function exisists in the vanilla source though!

I supposed something went wrong while merging/syncing the IDE changes from the
official tree...

Change 'wait_hwif_ready' by 'ide_wait_hwif_ready' in both ide-probe.c
and ide.c

Ok. This obviously fixes it.
I just noticed that I might have used the wrong source tree.

So which is the BK tree to use:

linuxppc_2_4_devel or linuxppc-2.4 ???

Thanks,

Steven


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

On Mon, Sep 15, 2003 at 02:29:05PM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:

Hubert Figuiere wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:31, Steven Scholz wrote:

quoted

The BK linuxppc_2_4_devel tree has another problem as well:

drivers/ide/idedriver.o: In function `probe_hwif':
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): undefined reference to
`wait_hwif_ready'
drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): relocation truncated to fit:
R_PPC_REL24
wait_hwif_ready

ide-probe.c contains a call for wait_hwif_ready(), which is not defined.
This function exisists in the vanilla source though!

I supposed something went wrong while merging/syncing the IDE changes
from the
official tree...

Change 'wait_hwif_ready' by 'ide_wait_hwif_ready' in both ide-probe.c
and ide.c

Ok. This obviously fixes it.
I just noticed that I might have used the wrong source tree.

So which is the BK tree to use:

linuxppc_2_4_devel or linuxppc-2.4 ???

It depends on where what you want to use exists.  If something is in
_devel and not in linuxppc-2.4, patches to move features over one at a
time would be happily reviewed.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Tom,

quoted

I just noticed that I might have used the wrong source tree.

So which is the BK tree to use:

linuxppc_2_4_devel or linuxppc-2.4 ???

It depends on where what you want to use exists.  If something is in
_devel and not in linuxppc-2.4, patches to move features over one at a
time would be happily reviewed.

???
So which is the most recent?

http://www.penguinppc.org/dev/kernel.shtml calls linuxppc_2_4_devel the "old PPC
development tree" !?

Steven


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:42:37AM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:

Tom,

quoted

quoted

I just noticed that I might have used the wrong source tree.

So which is the BK tree to use:

linuxppc_2_4_devel or linuxppc-2.4 ???

It depends on where what you want to use exists.  If something is in
_devel and not in linuxppc-2.4, patches to move features over one at a
time would be happily reviewed.

???
So which is the most recent?

Aside from possible changes to match upstream subsystem rewrites (such
as IDE) there hasn't been any changes in linuxppc-2.4 specific to 8xx
that didn't happen in 2_4_devel.

http://www.penguinppc.org/dev/kernel.shtml calls linuxppc_2_4_devel the
"old PPC development tree" !?

That's correct.  It's becoming more of a pain to maintain or own set of
trees to track 2.4 when Marcelo uses BK as well.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Tom,

quoted

quoted

quoted

So which is the BK tree to use:
linuxppc_2_4_devel or linuxppc-2.4 ???

Aside from possible changes to match upstream subsystem rewrites (such
as IDE) there hasn't been any changes in linuxppc-2.4 specific to 8xx
that didn't happen in 2_4_devel.

quoted

http://www.penguinppc.org/dev/kernel.shtml calls linuxppc_2_4_devel the
"old PPC development tree" !?

That's correct.  It's becoming more of a pain to maintain or own set of
trees to track 2.4 when Marcelo uses BK as well.

I suppose we need both trees. Otherwise you would have got rid of one. Right? :o)

Steven


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 11:25:43AM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:

Tom,

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

So which is the BK tree to use:
linuxppc_2_4_devel or linuxppc-2.4 ???

Aside from possible changes to match upstream subsystem rewrites (such
as IDE) there hasn't been any changes in linuxppc-2.4 specific to 8xx
that didn't happen in 2_4_devel.

quoted

http://www.penguinppc.org/dev/kernel.shtml calls linuxppc_2_4_devel the
"old PPC development tree" !?

That's correct.  It's becoming more of a pain to maintain or own set of
trees to track 2.4 when Marcelo uses BK as well.

I suppose we need both trees. Otherwise you would have got rid of one.
Right? :o)

With an infinite amount of time, there would be only one tree.  Patches
to move things, one at a time, in logical chunks, to linux-2.4 happily
reviewed.

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/