Re: [PATCH] net: dwc_eth_ops: Correct check for FDT_64BIT

[Jerome Forissier]

Hi Tom,

On 10/1/25 22:30, Tom Rini wrote:
> There is no xPL_FDT_64BIT symbol and it would furthermore not likely
> make sense for there to be one. Correct this check to use
> CONFIG_IS_ENABLED and not IS_ENABLED.

The other way around ;-)

> 
> Signed-off-by: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/dwc_eth_qos.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/net/dwc_eth_qos.c b/drivers/net/dwc_eth_qos.c
> index 551ee0ea6a02..a098916a674b 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/dwc_eth_qos.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/dwc_eth_qos.c
> @@ -1411,7 +1411,7 @@ static fdt_addr_t eqos_get_base_addr_common(struct 
> udevice *dev, fdt_addr_t addr
>       struct eqos_priv *eqos = dev_get_priv(dev);
>  
>       if (addr == FDT_ADDR_T_NONE) {
> -#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(FDT_64BIT)
> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FDT_64BIT)
>               dev_err(dev, "addr=0x%llx is invalid.\n", addr);
>  #else
>               dev_err(dev, "addr=0x%x is invalid.\n", addr);

Thanks,
-- 
Jerome