Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <743b5d56-91b1-0b39-44f2-d353a95d59a0@infradead.org>
Date:   Thu, 6 Apr 2023 12:51:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.9.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] parport_pc: don't allow driver for SPARC32
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@orcam.me.uk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>,
        linux-parport@lists.infradead.org
References: <20230406160548.25721-1-rdunlap@infradead.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.2304062039260.44308@angie.orcam.me.uk>
From:   Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2304062039260.44308@angie.orcam.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 4/6/23 12:49, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2023, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> 
>> arch/sparc/kernel/ebus.o is only built for SPARC64.
>> ns87303_lock is only built for SPARC64.
>> arch/sparc/include/asm/parport.h says that it is for sparc64.
>> Various documentation on the internet says that ebus is for UltraSPARC
>> systems (64-bit).
>>
>> Therefore don't allow PARPORT_PC to be built for SPARC32.
> 
>  This looks completely wrong to me, any ordinary PCI parallel port card 
> ought just to work as long as you have PCI (S390 is special I'm told).  
> What needs to be done is AFAICT just making `parport_pc_find_nonpci_ports' 
> in arch/sparc/include/asm/parport.h SPARC64-specific, i.e.:
> 
> static int parport_pc_find_nonpci_ports(int autoirq, int autodma)
> {
> 	return (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPARC64) &&
> 		platform_driver_register(&ecpp_driver));
> }
> 
> or suchlike and let the optimiser get rid of all the unwanted unsupported 
> stuff.

Fine, please go ahead with that solution.

-- 
~Randy