Hi Geert,
On 8/06/21 6:42 pm, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
+#define isa_inb(port) ((ISA_TYPE == ISA_TYPE_AG100) ? ((port) & 1 ? isa_inw((port) - 1) & 0xff : isa_inw(port) >> 8) : in_8(isa_itb(port))
This fails to compile due to a missing closing parenthesis.
Sorry - looks like brown paper bag time today. (I did say 'entirely
untested'? Didn't expect such a thorough review for a first RFC patch ...)
Sorry, I missed that part in the cover letter ;-)
I'll put it more prominently next time.
Ran all patches through checkpatch now, and I still get warnings and
even a few errors ('trailing statements should be on the next line').
All due to my keeping to the code style used in io_mm.h, as far as I
could see.
What's your preference - additions in new style, or keep the old style?
Cheers,
Michael
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
