On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 04:29:04PM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > On Tuesday 07 July 2009, Scott Wood wrote: > > I fixed the obvious merge conflict (missing #endif) in "davinci_nand: > > cleanup I (minor)", but I'm a little confused since the symbol it refers > > to (CONFIG_SOC_DM6446) doesn't seem to be defined anywhere. At first I > > thought it had been replaced with CONFIG_SOC_DM644X, but that doesn't > > seem to be the case -- AFAICT, there never was a definition of > > CONFIG_SOC_DM6446 in the tree. There is one other place in the tree > > that ifdefs based on it, though (cpu/arm926ejs/davinci/cpu.c). > > > > David, any thoughts? If this is in error, could you send a followup > > patch? > > That should have been CONFIG_SOC_DM644X in the first place, yes. > > > ========== CUT HERE > From: David Brownell <dbrown...@users.sourceforge.net> > > Typo fix: use CONFIG_SOC_DM644X, not CONFIG_SOC_DM646. > > Signed-off-by: David Brownell <dbrown...@users.sourceforge.net>
Applied to u-boot-nand-flash. Wolfgang, I used "Typo fix: use CONFIG_SOC_DM644X, not CONFIG_SOC_DM646." as the first line of the commit message, which differs from the "Pull request: nand flash" subject of the outer message that will show up on the archive list. Do you want me to resend the patch to the list as an e-mail with that subject (and if I do, can I then fix the "DM646" typo and clarify which code the fix is for?), or is the updated subject line in this e-mail enough? David, the usage in cpu/arm926ejs/davinci/cpu.c should probably be fixed as well. -Scott _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot