On 2010-03-23 at 22:54:59 +0100, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri,  5 Mar 2010 17:52:23 +0100
> Tobias Klauser <tklauser@distanz.ch> wrote:
> 
> > +	sigs |= (altera_uart_getppdcd(port->line) ? TIOCM_CD : 0);
> > +	sigs |= (altera_uart_getppdtr(port->line) ? TIOCM_DTR : 0);
> 
> We seem to be missing a few things here.
> 
> drivers/serial/altera_uart.c: In function 'altera_uart_get_mctrl':
> drivers/serial/altera_uart.c:100: error: implicit declaration of function 'altera_uart_getppdcd'
> drivers/serial/altera_uart.c:101: error: implicit declaration of function 'altera_uart_getppdtr'
> drivers/serial/altera_uart.c: In function 'altera_uart_set_mctrl':
> drivers/serial/altera_uart.c:114: error: implicit declaration of function 'altera_uart_setppdtr'

These should usually be declared in a board specific header. There were
compatibility macros in altera_uart.c which defined them to NOPs in case
the board header did not properly define them. But I remove them as per
request by Alan Cox (Message-ID: 20100301181920.3952c3e7@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk).

Should we add them again (maybe to altera_uart.h)? Or would it be better
to define a config symbol which is set in the board specific Kconfig and
altera_uart depends on it?

Thanks
Tobias
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/