On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:09:19 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Boris Brezillon > <boris.brezillon at bootlin.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 13:27:53 +0200 > > Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Boris Brezillon > >> <boris.brezillon at bootlin.com> wrote: > >> > On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 22:09:25 +0200 > >> > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon at bootlin.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> It just makes NAND maintainers' life easier by allowing them to > >> >> compile-test this driver without having ARCH_S3C24XX or ARCH_S3C64XX > >> >> enabled. > >> >> > >> >> We add a dependency on HAS_IOMEM to make sure the driver compiles > >> >> correctly, and a dependency on !IA64 because the {read,write}s{bwl}() > >> >> accessors are not defined for this architecture. > >> > > >> > I see that SPARC does not define those accessors either. So I guess we > >> > should add depends on !SPARC. > >> > > >> > Arnd, any other way to know when the platform implements > >> > {read,write}s{bwl}() accessors? > >> > >> I'd just consider that a bug, and send a patch to fix sparc64 if it's broken. > >> sparc32 appears to have these, and when Thierry sent the patch > >> to implement them everywhere[1], he said that he tested sparc64 as > >> well, so either something regressed since then, or his testing > >> was incomplete. Either way, the correct answer IMHO would be to > >> make it work rather than to add infrastructure around the broken > >> configurations. > > > > I guess the same goes for IA64 then. > > Right. FWIW, I just tried it out and sent the respective arch patches. Cool! Thanks for doing that.