Hi Rasmus,
On 27/09/19 10:33, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
On 12/09/2019 11.17, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
While trying to implement an mxs_set_gpmiclk() I stumbled on a few minor things.
Rasmus Villemoes (4): arm: mxs: fix register definitions for clkctrl_gpmi and clkctrl_sspX arm: mxs: fix comments in arch_cpu_init to match the code arm: mxs: be more careful when enabling gpmi_clk arm: mxs: implement mxs_set_gpmiclk
ping
You're right, patch was lost (..just because the list of patches for i.MX was very long and I have not seen..), I found the series again.
I applied the first 3 patches, they are improvements / clarifications. The fourth patch has no user, so I ask who is suing it. Nevertheless, patch 4/4 breaks some boards (I found at least "xfi3") because it is compiled even for not i.MX boards and then prototype is missing:
arm: + xfi3 +arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/clock.c: In function 'mxs_set_gpmiclk': +arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/clock.c:151:9: error: implicit declaration of function 'mxs_get_ioclk'; did you mean 'mxs_set_ioclk'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] + clk = mxs_get_ioclk(MXC_IOCLK0); + ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ + mxs_set_ioclk +arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/clock.c: At top level: +arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/clock.c:218:17: error: conflicting types for 'mxs_get_ioclk' + static uint32_t mxs_get_ioclk(enum mxs_ioclock io) + ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ +arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/clock.c:151:9: note: previous implicit declaration of 'mxs_get_ioclk' was here +cc1: all warnings being treated as errors +make[3]: *** [arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs/clock.o] Error 1 +make[2]: *** [arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/mxs] Error 2 +make[1]: *** [arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs] Error 2 +make: *** [sub-make] Error 2
I have nothing against to merge this, too, but the issue above must be fixed - thanks !
Best regards, Stefano Babic