Re: [PATCH] ata: libata depends on HAS_DMA

[Robert Hancock]

Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 15 May 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Don't know much history here but I don't wanna sprinkle ifdefs around
> > in libata so I would much prefer dummy implementation which doesn't
> > fail compile.
>
> My original patch did that by adding 'depends on HAS_DMA'.
>
> The only architectures that don't have that are m68k, m32r,
> h8300, s390 and microblaze. More research has shown that
> they all found a different way to disable the ATA drivers
> already, except microblaze.
>
> Alan, you objected the patch initially (and loudly), but
> maybe you can reconsider this. The only actual effect
> that my patch has is to allow an allyesconfig build on
> microblaze and that will implement dma-mapping.h in the
> next version.
>
> All existing architectures do not care at all about this
> change, unless I'm missing something.
>
> Besides, all the other users of the DMA mapping API
> also depend on CONFIG_HAS_DMA.

Yes, it fixes the compile problem by preventing libata from being 
compiled at all. But the point is that libata should be able to work 
without DMA support.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/