* Ohad Ben-Cohen <[email protected]> [120222 01:30]: > + Tony, Suman > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux > <[email protected]> wrote: > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c: In function 'omap2_mbox_probe': > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c:354: error: 'omap2_mboxes' undeclared (first > > use in this function) > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c:354: error: (Each undeclared identifier is > > reported only once > > arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c:354: error: for each function it appears in.) > > The below should trivially solve this, but I wonder if there was any > other merit in explicitly using CONFIG_SOC_OMAP2420 there (any > different between 2420 and 2430 in that respect ?). > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c > index 609ea2d..e61d275 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c > @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ struct omap_mbox mbox_dsp_info = { > struct omap_mbox *omap3_mboxes[] = { &mbox_dsp_info, NULL }; > #endif > > -#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_OMAP2420) > +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2) > /* IVA */ > static struct omap_mbox2_priv omap2_mbox_iva_priv = { > .tx_fifo = {
2430 is like omap3 for the mailbox. So the code we have seems wrong trying to initialize it like 2420 mailbox. So we either need a new entry for omap2430_mboxes[], or should just bail out from the probe for 2430 for the fix. Regards, 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
