[U-Boot] [PATCH] Tegra2 Seaboard: Fix mach_type to match mach-type.h update
Seaboard build stopped working due to Sandeep's recent mach-types.h update to match the Linux kernel. Change Seaboard to use MACH_TYPE_SEABOARD.
Tom Warren (1): arm: Tegra2: Change mach-type to MACH_TYPE_SEABOARD due to mach-types.h update
include/configs/seaboard.h | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Signed-off-by: Tom Warren twarren@nvidia.com --- include/configs/seaboard.h | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/configs/seaboard.h b/include/configs/seaboard.h index fd87560..59eef56 100644 --- a/include/configs/seaboard.h +++ b/include/configs/seaboard.h @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ #define CONFIG_TEGRA2_ENABLE_UARTD #define CONFIG_SYS_NS16550_COM1 NV_PA_APB_UARTD_BASE
-#define CONFIG_MACH_TYPE MACH_TYPE_TEGRA_SEABOARD +#define CONFIG_MACH_TYPE MACH_TYPE_SEABOARD #define CONFIG_SYS_BOARD_ODMDATA 0x300d8011 /* lp1, 1GB */
#endif /* __CONFIG_H */
OK, I'm an idiot. I see now that I needed to add -n to format-patch to add the numbering to the [PATCH] header.
Sorry for the noise - resending now with the corrected patchset.
Tom
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Tom Warren twarren.nvidia@gmail.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Tom Warren twarren@nvidia.com
include/configs/seaboard.h | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/configs/seaboard.h b/include/configs/seaboard.h index fd87560..59eef56 100644 --- a/include/configs/seaboard.h +++ b/include/configs/seaboard.h @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ #define CONFIG_TEGRA2_ENABLE_UARTD #define CONFIG_SYS_NS16550_COM1 NV_PA_APB_UARTD_BASE
-#define CONFIG_MACH_TYPE MACH_TYPE_TEGRA_SEABOARD +#define CONFIG_MACH_TYPE MACH_TYPE_SEABOARD #define CONFIG_SYS_BOARD_ODMDATA 0x300d8011 /* lp1, 1GB */
#endif /* __CONFIG_H */
1.7.4.1
Le 23/02/2011 21:03, Tom Warren a écrit :
OK, I'm an idiot. I see now that I needed to add -n to format-patch to add the numbering to the [PATCH] header.
Sorry for the noise - resending now with the corrected patchset.
Tom
Actually, for a single patch, you don't need to generate numbers, nor a cover letter (the 0/N message).
Amicalement,
Albert,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Albert ARIBAUD albert.aribaud@free.fr wrote:
Le 23/02/2011 21:03, Tom Warren a écrit :
OK, I'm an idiot. I see now that I needed to add -n to format-patch to add the numbering to the [PATCH] header.
Sorry for the noise - resending now with the corrected patchset.
Tom
Actually, for a single patch, you don't need to generate numbers, nor a cover letter (the 0/N message).
Is the current patch OK as is? It's a simple one-line change.
Thanks, Tom
Amicalement,
Albert.
Le 22/03/2011 20:27, Tom Warren a écrit :
Albert,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Albert ARIBAUDalbert.aribaud@free.fr wrote:
Le 23/02/2011 21:03, Tom Warren a écrit :
OK, I'm an idiot. I see now that I needed to add -n to format-patch to add the numbering to the [PATCH] header.
Sorry for the noise - resending now with the corrected patchset.
Tom
Actually, for a single patch, you don't need to generate numbers, nor a cover letter (the 0/N message).
Is the current patch OK as is? It's a simple one-line change.
I guess so. As soon as I get confirmation from Wolfgang that board patches can go through any tree, I'll apply it as a bugfix to master.
Thanks, Tom
Amicalement,
Albert,
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Albert ARIBAUD albert.aribaud@free.fr wrote:
Le 22/03/2011 20:27, Tom Warren a écrit :
Albert,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Albert ARIBAUDalbert.aribaud@free.fr wrote:
Le 23/02/2011 21:03, Tom Warren a écrit :
OK, I'm an idiot. I see now that I needed to add -n to format-patch to add the numbering to the [PATCH] header.
Sorry for the noise - resending now with the corrected patchset.
Tom
Actually, for a single patch, you don't need to generate numbers, nor a cover letter (the 0/N message).
Is the current patch OK as is? It's a simple one-line change.
I guess so. As soon as I get confirmation from Wolfgang that board patches can go through any tree, I'll apply it as a bugfix to master.
Great. Thanks!
Also, I saw your 'patches pending before release?' message. Have my Tegra 'A9 CPU' patches been applied to arm master? I'm still a little confused about the timing of the merge window vs. the release, and I'm not sure if the full set of Tegra patches will be in the next release.
Thanks,
Tom
Thanks, Tom
Amicalement,
Albert.
Le 24/03/2011 16:08, Tom Warren a écrit :
Albert,
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Albert ARIBAUDalbert.aribaud@free.fr wrote:
Le 22/03/2011 20:27, Tom Warren a écrit :
Albert,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Albert ARIBAUDalbert.aribaud@free.fr wrote:
Le 23/02/2011 21:03, Tom Warren a écrit :
OK, I'm an idiot. I see now that I needed to add -n to format-patch to add the numbering to the [PATCH] header.
Sorry for the noise - resending now with the corrected patchset.
Tom
Actually, for a single patch, you don't need to generate numbers, nor a cover letter (the 0/N message).
Is the current patch OK as is? It's a simple one-line change.
I guess so. As soon as I get confirmation from Wolfgang that board patches can go through any tree, I'll apply it as a bugfix to master.
Great. Thanks!
Applied to u-boot-arm/master.
Also, I saw your 'patches pending before release?' message. Have my Tegra 'A9 CPU' patches been applied to arm master? I'm still a little confused about the timing of the merge window vs. the release, and I'm not sure if the full set of Tegra patches will be in the next release.
Sorry, I can't get them in in the upcoming release as I barely have time to sort the pull req for today, but I'll get them on u-boot-arm/master as soon as I can after that, so they'll be available on the ARM tree until the following release, where they'll move to the mainline one.
Amicalement,
Albert,
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 9:22 AM, Albert ARIBAUD albert.aribaud@free.fr wrote:
Le 24/03/2011 16:08, Tom Warren a écrit :
Albert,
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Albert ARIBAUDalbert.aribaud@free.fr wrote:
Le 22/03/2011 20:27, Tom Warren a écrit :
Albert,
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Albert ARIBAUDalbert.aribaud@free.fr wrote:
Le 23/02/2011 21:03, Tom Warren a écrit :
OK, I'm an idiot. I see now that I needed to add -n to format-patch to add the numbering to the [PATCH] header.
Sorry for the noise - resending now with the corrected patchset.
Tom
Actually, for a single patch, you don't need to generate numbers, nor a cover letter (the 0/N message).
Is the current patch OK as is? It's a simple one-line change.
I guess so. As soon as I get confirmation from Wolfgang that board patches can go through any tree, I'll apply it as a bugfix to master.
Great. Thanks!
Applied to u-boot-arm/master.
Also, I saw your 'patches pending before release?' message. Have my Tegra 'A9 CPU' patches been applied to arm master? I'm still a little confused about the timing of the merge window vs. the release, and I'm not sure if the full set of Tegra patches will be in the next release.
Sorry, I can't get them in in the upcoming release as I barely have time to sort the pull req for today, but I'll get them on u-boot-arm/master as soon as I can after that, so they'll be available on the ARM tree until the following release, where they'll move to the mainline one.
Excellent - that's all I can ask. Thanks!
Tom
Amicalement,
Albert.
Dear Albert ARIBAUD,
In message 4D8B54B8.6020708@free.fr you wrote:
Is the current patch OK as is? It's a simple one-line change.
I guess so. As soon as I get confirmation from Wolfgang that board patches can go through any tree, I'll apply it as a bugfix to master.
If you consider it OK, then it's fine with me, too.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
participants (3)
-
Albert ARIBAUD -
Tom Warren -
Wolfgang Denk