On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 04:29:04PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
On Tuesday 07 July 2009, Scott Wood wrote:
I fixed the obvious merge conflict (missing #endif) in "davinci_nand: cleanup I (minor)", but I'm a little confused since the symbol it refers to (CONFIG_SOC_DM6446) doesn't seem to be defined anywhere. At first I thought it had been replaced with CONFIG_SOC_DM644X, but that doesn't seem to be the case -- AFAICT, there never was a definition of CONFIG_SOC_DM6446 in the tree. There is one other place in the tree that ifdefs based on it, though (cpu/arm926ejs/davinci/cpu.c).
David, any thoughts? If this is in error, could you send a followup patch?
That should have been CONFIG_SOC_DM644X in the first place, yes.
========== CUT HERE From: David Brownell dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net
Typo fix: use CONFIG_SOC_DM644X, not CONFIG_SOC_DM646.
Signed-off-by: David Brownell dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net
Applied to u-boot-nand-flash.
Wolfgang, I used "Typo fix: use CONFIG_SOC_DM644X, not CONFIG_SOC_DM646." as the first line of the commit message, which differs from the "Pull request: nand flash" subject of the outer message that will show up on the archive list. Do you want me to resend the patch to the list as an e-mail with that subject (and if I do, can I then fix the "DM646" typo and clarify which code the fix is for?), or is the updated subject line in this e-mail enough?
David, the usage in cpu/arm926ejs/davinci/cpu.c should probably be fixed as well.
-Scott