[alsa-devel] [PATCH] ALSA: atmel: fix building the ac97 driver for at91-multiplatform
From: Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de
at91 will no longer export the mach/cpu.h and mach/hardware.h header files in the future, which would break building the atmel ac97c driver.
Since the cpu_is_* check is only used to find out whether we are running on avr32 or arm/at91, we can hardcode that check in the ARM case.
Unfortunately the driver is missing other work to be useful again on ARM, if anyone wants to actually use it, they need to add a DT binding, and the driver should really be converted to use the ASoC framework.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de Link: http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg382068.html --- sound/atmel/ac97c.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/atmel/ac97c.c b/sound/atmel/ac97c.c index b59427d5a697..83975f8d5947 100644 --- a/sound/atmel/ac97c.c +++ b/sound/atmel/ac97c.c @@ -34,10 +34,10 @@ #include <linux/platform_data/dma-dw.h> #include <linux/dma/dw.h>
+#ifdef CONFIG_AVR32 #include <mach/cpu.h> - -#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_AT91 -#include <mach/hardware.h> +#else +#define cpu_is_at32ap7000() (0) #endif
#include "ac97c.h"
Hi Alexandre,
Am Freitag 19 Dezember 2014, 00:13:10 schrieb Alexandre Belloni:
From: Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de
at91 will no longer export the mach/cpu.h and mach/hardware.h header files in the future, which would break building the atmel ac97c driver.
Since the cpu_is_* check is only used to find out whether we are running on avr32 or arm/at91, we can hardcode that check in the ARM case.
Unfortunately the driver is missing other work to be useful again on ARM, if anyone wants to actually use it, they need to add a DT binding, and the driver should really be converted to use the ASoC framework.
I recently send 3 patches to make DT working with this driver, you were on CC :). Please refer to http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.alsa.devel/131686 I wonder though why all 3 are listed there although they were sent to different lists.
Best regards, Alexander
Hi,
On 19/12/2014 at 09:20:47 +0100, Alexander Stein wrote :
I recently send 3 patches to make DT working with this driver, you were on CC :). Please refer to http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.alsa.devel/131686 I wonder though why all 3 are listed there although they were sent to different lists.
I know, my plan was to review them today. Maybe we could change the commit log if your patches are taken before that one. I must admit I simply kept what Arnd had written.
Hello.
On 12/19/2014 2:13 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
From: Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de
at91 will no longer export the mach/cpu.h and mach/hardware.h header files in the future, which would break building the atmel ac97c driver.
Since the cpu_is_* check is only used to find out whether we are running on avr32 or arm/at91, we can hardcode that check in the ARM case.
Unfortunately the driver is missing other work to be useful again on ARM, if anyone wants to actually use it, they need to add a DT binding, and the driver should really be converted to use the ASoC framework.
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de Link: http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg382068.html
sound/atmel/ac97c.c | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/sound/atmel/ac97c.c b/sound/atmel/ac97c.c index b59427d5a697..83975f8d5947 100644 --- a/sound/atmel/ac97c.c +++ b/sound/atmel/ac97c.c @@ -34,10 +34,10 @@ #include <linux/platform_data/dma-dw.h> #include <linux/dma/dw.h>
+#ifdef CONFIG_AVR32 #include <mach/cpu.h>
-#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_AT91 -#include <mach/hardware.h> +#else +#define cpu_is_at32ap7000() (0)
() around 0 not needed at all.
[...]
WBR, Sergei
Arnd,
On 19/12/2014 at 17:53:44 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote :
+#define cpu_is_at32ap7000() (0)
() around 0 not needed at all.
Do you want me to fix that and resubmit? I don't have strong opinion about this.
On Friday 19 December 2014 18:02:21 Alexandre Belloni wrote:
Arnd,
On 19/12/2014 at 17:53:44 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote :
+#define cpu_is_at32ap7000() (0)
() around 0 not needed at all.
Do you want me to fix that and resubmit? I don't have strong opinion about this.
Yes, no point debating over this. I copied the definition from arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/cpu.h and didn't want to do any style changes, otherwise I'd probably have turned it into an inline function, but any version that works is fine with me.
Arnd
participants (4)
-
Alexander Stein -
Alexandre Belloni -
Arnd Bergmann -
Sergei Shtylyov