On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Tony Lindgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Paul Walmsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080924 11:08]: >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> >> > * Paul Walmsley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080924 11:03]: >> > > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> > > >> > > > * Tony Lindgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080924 10:12]: >> > > > > * Arun KS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080924 10:05]: >> > > > > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Hiroshi DOYU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > Hi, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > How about introducing a new typedef in order to accommodate the >> > > > > > > different size of enable_regs without ifdefs? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I think that this is apparently the case categorized into (a) in >> > > > > > > 'CodyingStyle'. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I am not sure which is the right way to do. Is this what you meant? >> > > > > >> > > > > No, let's not do this. It should be void __iomem * for sure. Most of >> > > > > the omap1 clock registers looks just fine for void __iomem *, let's >> > > > > figure out which registers are broken. >> > > > >> > > > I've pushed a fix for this. Turns out I missed some conversions to >> > > > void __iomem * while merging code from arm-devel branch. Fix also >> > > > attached. >> > > >> > > Those registers should be u16 for OMAP2/3. OMAP1 needs something >> > > similar, >> > > which will also get rid of those casts to void __iomem * - hacking on >> > > something now ... >> > >> > Argh, sorry. Yeah it's an offset for omap2/3.. Will revert immediately. >> >> No problem, it's really my fault - I need to start testing on OMAP1 also. > > How about this for a quick fix? It produces now a bunch of warnings > until omap1 clock uses offsets too.
Tested, it works. Its good to have this fix till omap1 clock uses offsets. Arun > > Tony > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
