Kevin, Thanks for addressing this quickly.
I have disabled MMC/SD and the build was complete. I will sync up to take your change if needed. Murali Karicheri Software Design Engineer Texas Instruments Inc. Germantown, MD 20874 Phone : 301-515-3736 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Kevin Hilman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 12:51 PM >>>To: Karicheri, Muralidharan >>>Cc: Rajashekhara, Sudhakar; Paulraj, Sandeep; Subrahmanya, Chaithrika; >>>[email protected] >>>Subject: Re: staging tree for dm6467 and dm355 support >>> >>>"Karicheri, Muralidharan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> >>>> Kevin, >>>> >>>> I tried building kernel for DM6446 and I got the following error. >>>> >>>> CC arch/arm/mach-davinci/id.o >>>> CC arch/arm/mach-davinci/psc.o >>>> CC arch/arm/mach-davinci/gpio.o >>>> CC arch/arm/mach-davinci/mux.o >>>> CC arch/arm/mach-davinci/dma.o >>>> CC arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices.o >>>> arch/arm/mach-davinci/devices.c:75: error: 'DAVINCI_MMC_SD_BASE' >>>undeclared here (not in a function) >>>> >>>> Could you please address this asap ? >>>> >>>> I created a branch off the origin/tmp/ti-staging branch for this build. >>>> >>> >>>Fixed. Sorry, I didn't have MMC enabled in my .config so I didn't >>>catch that one. >>> >>>I simply added the definition to devices.c >>> >>>Kevin >>> >>> >>>> >>>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>>From: davinci-linux-open-source-bounces+m- >>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:davinci-linux-open- >>>source- >>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin >>>>>>>Hilman >>>>>>>Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 9:06 PM >>>>>>>To: Rajashekhara, Sudhakar; Paulraj, Sandeep; Subrahmanya, Chaithrika >>>>>>>Cc: [email protected] >>>>>>>Subject: staging tree for dm6467 and dm355 support >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>While I review the dm6467 and dm355 patches, and prepare for an >>>update >>>>>>>to newer kernels, I've created a temporary staging branch[1] where >>>>>>>I've applied the dm646x and dm355 patches. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On top of that, I've added a small series of rework patches where >>>I've >>>>>>>reworked how and where base addresses are defined, init functions are >>>>>>>declared. I'm very interested in your comments on this layout. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Basically, what I've done is got rid of most of the base address >>>>>>>definitions as global defines. The remaining ones that need to >>>global >>>>>>>and that are common to ALL chips in the family will live in >>>>>>>hardware.h. Ones that need to be global and are chip specific should >>>>>>>live in <chipname>.h >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Note that I said "need to be global". Most base address defines do >>>>>>>not need to be in a global header. They are only ever used in >>>>>>>chip/board specific init code to fill in platform_data which is then >>>>>>>passed to the driver. Drivers should _never_ be using base address >>>>>>>defines directly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I've compile and boot tested this kernel on dm6446, dm6467 and dm355. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Kevin >>>>>>> >>>>>>>[1] See the 'tmp/staging branch in DaVinci git. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>http://source.mvista.com/git/?p=linux-davinci- >>>>>>>2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/tmp/ti-staging >>>>>>> >>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list >>>>>>>[email protected] >>>>>>>http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open- >>>source _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list [email protected] http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
