Just tried to build 2.4.3, got:
make[6]: Entering directory
`/usr/local/src/linux/drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aicasm'
gcc -I/usr/include -ldb1 aicasm_gram.c aicasm_scan.c aicasm.c
aicasm_symbol.c -o aicasm
aicasm/aicasm_gram.y:45: ../queue.h: No such file or directory
aicasm/aicasm_gram.y:50: aicasm.h: No such file or directory
aicasm/aicasm_gram.y:51: aicasm_symbol.h: No such file or directory
aicasm/aicasm_gram.y:52: aicasm_insformat.h: No such file or directory
aicasm/aicasm_scan.l:44: ../queue.h: No such file or directory
aicasm/aicasm_scan.l:49: aicasm.h: No such file or directory
aicasm/aicasm_scan.l:50: aicasm_symbol.h: No such file or directory
aicasm/aicasm_scan.l:51: y.tab.h: No such file or directory
make[6]: *** [aicasm] Error 1
make[6]: Leaving directory
`/usr/local/src/linux/drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aicasm'
...
Looks like something's missing here. Had 2.4.2 patched to 2.4.3-pre7, backed
out pre7 and applied 2.4.3.
A patch has not hit the archive I use and I have just subscribed. Anyone
have a fix for this? I gotta have aic7xxx support, its my boot disk
controller.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 11:19:22PM -0800, George Bonser wrote:
> Just tried to build 2.4.3, got:
>
> make[6]: Entering directory
> `/usr/local/src/linux/drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aicasm'
> gcc -I/usr/include -ldb1 aicasm_gram.c aicasm_scan.c aicasm.c
> aicasm_symbol.c -o aicasm
> aicasm/aicasm_gram.y:45: ../queue.h: No such file or directory
> aicasm/aicasm_gram.y:50: aicasm.h: No such file or directory
...
> `/usr/local/src/linux/drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aicasm'
> ...
> Looks like something's missing here. Had 2.4.2 patched to 2.4.3-pre7, backed
> out pre7 and applied 2.4.3.
Yes, "-I." from gcc flags.
The sad part is that people have been patching right and left to get
that monster utility to compile because the dependencies say that it
must be used to remake the AIC sequencer binary image; which image is
perfectly ok except of its timestampts due to patching process.
Sources from a tarball never get to this, because Linus has suffered
the episode of patching it in, and compiling once -> timestamps are
such that the resulting binary (ok, hex version of it) is newer than
the source.
There are two bugs in those aic7xxx/aicasm makefile(s):
- Missing that -I. parameter for ${CC}
- Having any sort of dependency from sequencer's images
hexified binary (which the driver includes) to its source.
While mr. Gibbs is right that it makes a lot of sense to supply
the entire tool-chain to generate all generated parts of the aic7xxx
driver, nobody should be forced to do the compilation, or then
'make mrproper' should throw away the hexified sequencer code...
Compiling of the sequencer source should be *some* make target in
that driver directory, but not any of which normal users will
encounter at any time. That is, not a dependency target !
Very few people need to go poking at the sequencer source, and
they should manage to take a bit more complicated approach, than
'make bzImage' or 'make modules' to achieve that.
(i.e.: cd drivers/scsi/aic7xxx;make XYZ)
/Matti Aarnio -- presenting own opinnions, obviously
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001, George Bonser wrote:
> Just tried to build 2.4.3, got:
>
> make[6]: Entering directory
> `/usr/local/src/linux/drivers/scsi/aic7xxx/aicasm'
> gcc -I/usr/include -ldb1 aicasm_gram.c aicasm_scan.c aicasm.c
> aicasm_symbol.c -o aicasm
> aicasm/aicasm_gram.y:45: ../queue.h: No such file or directory
> aicasm/aicasm_gram.y:50: aicasm.h: No such file or directory
> aicasm/aicasm_gram.y:51: aicasm_symbol.h: No such file or directory
> aicasm/aicasm_gram.y:52: aicasm_insformat.h: No such file or directory
> aicasm/aicasm_scan.l:44: ../queue.h: No such file or directory
> aicasm/aicasm_scan.l:49: aicasm.h: No such file or directory
> aicasm/aicasm_scan.l:50: aicasm_symbol.h: No such file or directory
> aicasm/aicasm_scan.l:51: y.tab.h: No such file or directory
Looks like the gcc command line needs '-I.' there...
Jeff
> Yes, "-I." from gcc flags.
>
> The sad part is that people have been patching right and left to get
> that monster utility to compile because the dependencies say that it
> must be used to remake the AIC sequencer binary image; which image is
> perfectly ok except of its timestampts due to patching process.
The sad part is that there has been a fix for this "problem", supplied
by the author of the driver, for well over a month that everyone seems
to ignore.
--
Justin
>Just tried to build 2.4.3, got:
Grumble. Grumble. Grumble.
We've been through this before. The 6.1.8 version of the
driver has a fixed Makefile, doesn't even attempt to assemble
the firmware unless you config your kernel to turn it on, and has
been out for over a month now.
I guess it will have to wait until 2.4.4. I'll post updated
patches for 2.4.3 later today, but the ones for 2.4.3-pre6 should
apply fine.
--
Justin
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
> > Yes, "-I." from gcc flags.
> >
> > The sad part is that people have been patching right and left to get
> > that monster utility to compile because the dependencies say that it
> > must be used to remake the AIC sequencer binary image; which image is
> > perfectly ok except of its timestampts due to patching process.
>
> The sad part is that there has been a fix for this "problem", supplied
> by the author of the driver, for well over a month that everyone seems
> to ignore.
You cannot expect that all people will instantly start using the
latest driver from your Web site, immediately. Especially considering
1) There is no MAINTAINERS entry listing you or your web site
2) Your e-mail address is nowhere to be found in the code
3) The driver Web site address is nowhere to be found in the code
4) People are used to getting aic7xxx out of the kernel tarball
Are people just supposed to pick up your psychic waves? :)
Jeff
>You cannot expect that all people will instantly start using the
>latest driver from your Web site, immediately. Especially considering
I guess I expect people posting on LK to read it. There have been
announcements for all the driver versions on that list, I've responded
to all of the threads complaining about the aicasm stuff, and
I've provided updated patches to Linus.
I'll try the psychic waves thing. Perhaps it will help.
--
Justin
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
> >You cannot expect that all people will instantly start using the
> >latest driver from your Web site, immediately. Especially considering
>
> I guess I expect people posting on LK to read it. There have been
> announcements for all the driver versions on that list, I've responded
> to all of the threads complaining about the aicasm stuff, and
No less than three patches were posted to linux-kernel fixing my
drivers/net/Makefile screwup... after I posted my own patch. I never
assume people read lkml at all before posting a problem report.
Oh well, at least they are posting problem reports at all! :)
> I've provided updated patches to Linus.
I dunno about the patches for Linus. Have you read
Documentation/SubmittingPatches? #3, #6, and especially #9 probably
apply here, I'm guessing.
> I'll try the psychic waves thing. Perhaps it will help.
hee :)
Jeff
"Justin T. Gibbs" wrote:
>
> >You cannot expect that all people will instantly start using the
> >latest driver from your Web site, immediately. Especially considering
>
> I guess I expect people posting on LK to read it. There have been
> announcements for all the driver versions on that list, I've responded
> to all of the threads complaining about the aicasm stuff, and
> I've provided updated patches to Linus.
>
> I'll try the psychic waves thing. Perhaps it will help.
Jeff's implied request that you send in a patch to Alan
and Linus adding your contact information and development
website URL to the MAINTAINERS file and your source code
seems like a really good idea. Would you please do this?
Miles
> The sad part is that there has been a fix for this "problem", supplied
> by the author of the driver, for well over a month that everyone seems
> to ignore.
I've not had a patch from the author to apply so I've not applied anything.
Alan