Jeff Garzik writes: > Konstantinos Margaritis wrote: > > (not subscribed please CC me) > > > > I tried to compile sata_sil on a 2.6.27 kernel on powerpc32 and I found that > > it failed to compile -lots of dmi related errors. I found that I had to > > include the broken_systems handling code in #ifdef CONFIG_DMI (DMI is not > > supported on platforms other than i386/x86_64). > > > > Lennert on #mklinux told me that this commit broke the non-dmi support, and > > that a similar patch to mine is used on ARM systems : > > > > commit e57db7bde7bff95ae812736ca00c73bd5271455b > > SATA Sil: Blacklist system that spins off disks during ACPI power off > > > > With this patch, sata_sil compiles on ppc (and I guess on other platforms). > > I'm using it for a while with no problems with a Delock 4-port SATA PCI card. > > (CC'ing various Lennerts) That would be Lennert Buytenhek. > What is the breakage? Compile-time error because sata_sil is used on !x86 platforms and the unconditional references to x86-only DMI stuff simply aren't valid. I have an ARM + sata_sil NAS box that did have this problem a few kernel releases back, but it got resolved before that kernel's -final. (I can look up the details on Thursday when I'm back to my home network.) > Ideally the DMI subsystem should be provided wrappers for platforms > without DMI, rendering patches like this unnecessary. Another ARM NAS of mine uses pata_artop with a short 40-wire cable. To correct the speed setting I need a cable type override function with an "is it $this platform" check. The lack of a unified infrastructure for these checks forces me to use ARM-specific code wrapped with #ifdef CONFIG_ARM. So I agree with your comment, except I don't have any opinion on whether a unified platform identification layer should look like DMI, OF, or something else. /Mikael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
