On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 06:03:45PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday, November 18, 2010 17:04:38 Greg KH wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 04:08:26PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > -#if (__BYTE_ORDER == __LITTLE_ENDIAN) > > > - #define le16_to_cpu(x) (x) > > > -#elif (__BYTE_ORDER == __BIG_ENDIAN) > > > - #define le16_to_cpu(x) bswap_16(x) > > > -#else > > > - #error missing BYTE_ORDER > > > -#endif > > > +#define le16_to_cpu(x) libusb_cpu_to_le16(libusb_cpu_to_le16(x)) > > > > This line causes warnings when building. And are you sure it's right? > > Is that how libusb wants to be used? Why not just use the > > libusb_le16_to_cpu() macro instead? > > it isnt causing warings for me ... what warnings are you seeing ? CC lsusb-lsusb.o lsusb.c: In function âdump_configâ: lsusb.c:487:9: warning: declaration of â_tmpâ shadows a previous local lsusb.c:487:9: warning: shadowed declaration is here lsusb.c:487:9: warning: declaration of â_tmp2â shadows a previous local lsusb.c:487:9: warning: shadowed declaration is here lsusb.c: In function âdump_endpointâ: lsusb.c:745:18: warning: declaration of â_tmpâ shadows a previous local lsusb.c:745:18: warning: shadowed declaration is here lsusb.c:745:18: warning: declaration of â_tmp2â shadows a previous local lsusb.c:745:18: warning: shadowed declaration is here > it's doubled up because because it seems like the code wants to turn "le16 to > cpu" but libusb is doing "cpu to le16". but looking at the usage of this > macro, perhaps i'm reading too much into the name. > > i'll try and find a big endian machine with usable USB ... What do you suggest we do? Why can't we rely on the libusb version instead here? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
