> On 2010-03-24 at 12:05:27 +0100, Andrew Morton<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 07:47:47 +0100 Tobias Klauser<tklauser@distanz.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-03-23 at 22:54:59 +0100, Andrew Morton<akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>> I guess the latter.
>>
>> There should have been a real implementation of these in the patchset -
>> otherwise the code can't be used or tested. Confused.
>>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> The last patchset I submitted (with the functions removed from
> altera_uart.c) was tested on a local branch, where I added the macros to
> a global board specific header. I didn't include that one in the patch.
>
> After looking at the code and it's history a bit closer (and also on the
> nios2 specific part) I realised that this macro was probably added
> because the driver was originally based on drivers/serial/mcf.c (the
> macros are present there too).
>
> Also there are currently no board configurations known to me that define
> these macros. So I'd suggest to remove the usage of these macros
> alltogether. We could still add them again (to the board specific part
> and with the config option then) in case there will be a board
> configuration implementing DTR/DCD lines on GPIOs.
>
> Could anyone on nios2-dev verify that there are currently no such board
> configurations?
>
> I'd remove the usage of the macros then and post an updated patch.
>
