2012-02-09 09:24:16

by Karol Lewandowski

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Exynos4: Bring exynos4-dt up to date

On 31.01.2012 17:47, Karol Lewandowski wrote:

> This commit brings exynos4-dt in line with recent changes to
> mach-exynos tree, specifically:
>
> - Fixes build break related to replacing plat/exynos4.h with common.h
> in commit cc511b8d84d8 ("ARM: 7257/1: EXYNOS: introduce
> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.[ch]")



> - Converts machine to use CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER as done for other
> machines in commit 4e44d2cb95bd ("ARM: exynos4: convert to
> CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER") converted all exynos boards but
> exynos4-dt.c.


Minor correction - text from "converted all.." shall be deleted, like:

- Converts machine to use CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER as done for other
machines in commit 4e44d2cb95bd ("ARM: exynos4: convert to
CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER")

(It's result of not proofreading it carefully enough after squashing all
the patches.)

I don't think such a change is worth sending patch again, but I would be
grateful if you could fix it while merging.

Thanks

--
Karol Lewandowski | Samsung Poland R&D Center | Linux/Platform

2012-02-09 10:23:40

by Kukjin Kim

Subject: RE: [PATCH] ARM: Exynos4: Bring exynos4-dt up to date

Karol Lewandowski wrote:
>
> On 31.01.2012 17:47, Karol Lewandowski wrote:
>
> > This commit brings exynos4-dt in line with recent changes to
> > mach-exynos tree, specifically:
> >
> > - Fixes build break related to replacing plat/exynos4.h with common.h
> > in commit cc511b8d84d8 ("ARM: 7257/1: EXYNOS: introduce
> > arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.[ch]")
>
>
>
> > - Converts machine to use CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER as done for other
> > machines in commit 4e44d2cb95bd ("ARM: exynos4: convert to
> > CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER") converted all exynos boards but
> > exynos4-dt.c.
>
>
> Minor correction - text from "converted all.." shall be deleted, like:
>
> - Converts machine to use CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER as done for other
> machines in commit 4e44d2cb95bd ("ARM: exynos4: convert to
> CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER")
>
> (It's result of not proofreading it carefully enough after squashing all
> the patches.)
>
> I don't think such a change is worth sending patch again, but I would be
> grateful if you could fix it while merging.
>
OK, I did.
Thanks.

Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.