Hi Sascha,
On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Sascha Hauer <s.ha...@pengutronix.de>wrote: > Hi Yong, > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 01:43:43PM +0800, Yong Shen wrote: > > Hi Sascha, > > > > Thanks for your thorough review. I have two feedbacks to your commends. > > Sorry for delayed response, cause I had a hard time due to my computer > crash > > and data loss. > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mx5/cpu.c b/arch/arm/mach-mx5/cpu.c > > > > index 2d37785..83add9c 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-mx5/cpu.c > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mx5/cpu.c > > > > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ static int cpu_silicon_rev = -1; > > > > > > > > #define SI_REV 0x48 > > > > > > > > +struct cpu_wp *(*get_cpu_wp)(int *wp); > > > > + > > > > > > This is not needed. > > > > > This is needed, otherwise it does not pass compile. > > This hunk is the only change to arch/arm/mach-mx5/cpu.c and get_cpu_wp > is introduced with this patch, so how can this break compilation? > Also, you should move this to a header file. Otherwise you risk of > having multiple (and possibly different) declarations of the same > function which can lead to hard to find bugs. > IMHO, get_cpu_wp is definition rather than a declaration and without it there will be errors in link phase. its declaration is in arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/mxc.h.
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
