On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 09:32:44PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Segher Boessenkool
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Updated as per above, and with tickerized prefixes for sbc8641.
> > >
> >
> > Care to try once more? It's only "tickerized" if it's in all
>
On Apr 15, 2008, at 5:46 PM, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
In message: Re: [PATCH] 86xx: mark functions static, other minor
cleanups
on 15/04/2008 Timur Tabi wrote:
Paul Gortmaker wrote:
Valid point. Is there a precedent here -- like a printk indicating
that the old ID matched, to let the user
-void
+static void
mpc86xx_hpcn_show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m)
{
struct device_node *root;
@@ -190,13 +190,19 @@ static int __init mpc86xx_hpcn_probe(void)
{
unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
- if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(root, "mpc86xx"))
+ /* Delete thi
In message: Re: [PATCH] 86xx: mark functions static, other minor cleanups
on 15/04/2008 Timur Tabi wrote:
> Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>
> > Valid point. Is there a precedent here -- like a printk indicating
> > that the old ID matched, to let the user know?
>
> Not really,
Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> Valid point. Is there a precedent here -- like a printk indicating
> that the old ID matched, to let the user know?
Not really, but a pr_warning() would be nice.
> Actually on this one, we are OK, since the board support didn't exist
> in the default kernel until I'd jus
Timur Tabi wrote:
Paul Gortmaker wrote:
-void
+static void
mpc86xx_hpcn_show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m)
{
struct device_node *root;
@@ -190,13 +190,13 @@ static int __init mpc86xx_hpcn_probe(void)
{
unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
- if (of_flat_dt_is_compati
Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> -void
> +static void
> mpc86xx_hpcn_show_cpuinfo(struct seq_file *m)
> {
> struct device_node *root;
> @@ -190,13 +190,13 @@ static int __init mpc86xx_hpcn_probe(void)
> {
> unsigned long root = of_get_flat_dt_root();
>
> - if (of_flat_dt_is_compatible(
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Segher Boessenkool
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Updated as per above, and with tickerized prefixes for sbc8641.
> >
>
> Care to try once more? It's only "tickerized" if it's in all
> uppercase.
I'm looking at what exists in arch/powerpc/boot/dts/* and I'm
no
Updated as per above, and with tickerized prefixes for sbc8641.
Care to try once more? It's only "tickerized" if it's in all
uppercase.
+ compatible = "wind,sbc8641";
Segher
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozl
In message: Re: [PATCH] 86xx: mark functions static, other minor cleanups
on 11/04/2008 Scott Wood wrote:
> > model = "MPC8641HPCN";
> > - compatible = "mpc86xx";
> > + compatible = "fsl,mpc86xx";
> > #address-cells = <
add vendor prefix to the compat node check for uniqueness,
- compatible = "mpc86xx";
+ compatible = "wrs,sbc8641";
Either use the ticker thing (uppercase, "WIND,"), or, if you
prefer a lowercase name without that little extra namespace protection,
please use something more des
On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 12:59:46PM -0400, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8641_hpcn.dts
> b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8641_hpcn.dts
> index 79385bc..d5c2da4 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8641_hpcn.dts
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8641_hpcn.dts
> @@ -13,7
Cleanups as suggested by Stephen Rothwell and Dale Farnsworth, which
incudes: mark a bunch of functions static; add vendor prefix to the
compat node check for uniqueness, add in missing of_node_put(), delete
unused DBG macros.
Signed-off-by: Paul Gortmaker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/powerpc/boo
13 matches
Mail list logo