On Oct 7, 2010, at 2:12 AM, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 02:00:50AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2010, at 1:37 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>
>>>> @ -1125,7 +1128,10 @@ static struct of_device_id mpc85xx_mc_err_of_match[]
>>>> = {
>>>> { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8569-memory-controller", },
>>>> { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8572-memory-controller", },
>>>> { .compatible = "fsl,mpc8349-memory-controller", },
>>>> + { .compatible = "fsl,p1020-memory-controller", },
>>>> + { .compatible = "fsl,p1021-memory-controller", },
>>>> { .compatible = "fsl,p2020-memory-controller", },
>>>> + { .compatible = "fsl,p4080-memory-controller", },
>>>
>>> This line should be here ;)
>>
>> should NOT be here.
>
> Hm. Are you sure? I thought that only L2 cache controller is
> not applicable (and based on Scott's comment I removed
> the l2 cache compatible entry for p4080). But I guess
> memory-controller is somewhat similar to all other 85xx?
>
> If it's not, I can surely prepare a patch that removes
> p4080 entry.
>
> Thanks,
Your correct, late night and looking at the wrong line. It was the L2 that
should have been removed. Ignore me.
- k
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
