v3 fix error on drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c
PATCH 1/1 v3 fix error on drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c
fix those errors:
drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c: In function ‘pdc_data_xfer_vlb’:drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c:289: error: ‘ap’ undeclared (first use in this function) drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c:289: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c:289: error: for each function it appears in.) drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c: At top level:drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c:869: error: ‘ATA_PFLAG_PIO32_CHANGE’ undeclared here (not in a +function)
make[2]: *** [drivers/ata/pata_legacy.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [drivers/ata] Error 2
From 171dedab9e29534e911e0f4d23ea0a183edf75e9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Zhenwen Xu <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:30:54 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] fix error on drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c
--- drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c | 13 +++++++------ 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c +7 -6
@@ -285,10 +285,11 @@ static unsigned int pdc_data_xfer_vlb(struct ata_device *dev, unsigned char *buf, unsigned int buflen, int rw) { int slop = buflen & 3; +struct ata_port *ap = dev->link->ap; +/* 32bit I/O capable *and* we need to write a whole number of dwords */ if (ata_id_has_dword_io (dev->id) && (slop ==0 || slop ==3 ) && (ap->pflags &ATA_PFLAG_PIO32 )) { -struct ata_port *ap = dev->link->ap;unsigned long flags;local_irq_save (flags);
@@ -866,7 +867,7 @@ static struct legacy_controller controllers[] = { 0, 0, NULL }, {"PDC20230" , &pdc20230_port_ops,0x7 ,ATA_FLAG_NO_IORDY , - ATA_PFLAG_PIO32 | ATA_PFLAG_PIO32_CHANGE, NULL }, + ATA_PFLAG_PIO32 | ATA_PFLAG_PIO32CHANGE, NULL }, {"HT6560A", &ht6560a_port_ops, 0x07, ATA_FLAG_NO_IORDY, 0, NULL }, {"HT6560B", &ht6560b_port_ops, 0x1F,
@@ -877,13 +878,13 @@ static struct legacy_controller controllers[] = { 0, 0, NULL }, {"QDI6500" , &qdi6500_port_ops,0x07 ,ATA_FLAG_NO_IORDY , - ATA_PFLAG_PIO32 | ATA_PFLAG_PIO32_CHANGE, qdi_port }, + ATA_PFLAG_PIO32 | ATA_PFLAG_PIO32CHANGE, qdi_port }, {"QDI6580", &qdi6580_port_ops, 0x1F, - 0, ATA_PFLAG_PIO32 | ATA_PFLAG_PIO32_CHANGE, qdi_port }, + 0, ATA_PFLAG_PIO32 | ATA_PFLAG_PIO32CHANGE, qdi_port }, {"QDI6580DP", &qdi6580dp_port_ops, 0x1F, - 0, ATA_PFLAG_PIO32 | ATA_PFLAG_PIO32_CHANGE, qdi_port }, + 0, ATA_PFLAG_PIO32 | ATA_PFLAG_PIO32CHANGE, qdi_port }, {"W83759A", &winbond_port_ops, 0x1F, -0 ,ATA_PFLAG_PIO32 |ATA_PFLAG_PIO32_CHANGE , +0 ,ATA_PFLAG_PIO32 |ATA_PFLAG_PIO32CHANGE , winbond_port } };
Signature · 7 lines
1.5.6.5 -- --------------------------------- Zhenwen Xu - Open and Free Home Page: http://zhwen.org My Studio: http://dim4.cn
Quoted 11 lines · On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:32:59 +0800 Zhenwen Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
fix those errors:
drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c: In function ‘pdc_data_xfer_vlb’:drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c:289: error: ‘ap’ undeclared (first use in this function)drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c:289: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only oncedrivers/ata/pata_legacy.c:289: error: for each function it appears in.)drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c: At top level:drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c:869: error: ‘ATA_PFLAG_PIO32_CHANGE’ undeclared here (not in a +function)
make[2]: *** [drivers/ata/pata_legacy.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [drivers/ata] Error 2
Looks good to me. I shall have to find something larger than PROPOSED in the patch title to stop Jeff applying things that were discussion code
Quoted 15 lines · Alan Cox
Quoted 11 lines · On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:32:59 +0800 Zhenwen Xu <[email protected]> wrote:
fix those errors:
drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c: In function ‘pdc_data_xfer_vlb’:drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c:289: error: ‘ap’ undeclared (first use in this function)drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c:289: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only oncedrivers/ata/pata_legacy.c:289: error: for each function it appears in.)drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c: At top level:drivers/ata/pata_legacy.c:869: error: ‘ATA_PFLAG_PIO32_CHANGE’ undeclared here (not in a +function)
make[2]: *** [drivers/ata/pata_legacy.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [drivers/ata] Error 2
Quoted 2 lines
Looks good to me. I shall have to find something larger than PROPOSED in the patch title to stop Jeff applying things that were discussion code
It had a 'signed-off-by', which I took to mean, it was a proposed patch that was OK to merge once people were happy... Sorry about that misinterpretation.
Jeff