From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com (Alexandre Belloni) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 16:12:08 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 08/17] ARM: at91: stop using HAVE_AT91_DBGUx In-Reply-To: <54BE2F4D.2080800@atmel.com> References: <1421359100-8930-1-git-send-email-alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com> <1421359100-8930-9-git-send-email-alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com> <54BE2F4D.2080800@atmel.com> Message-ID: <20150120151208.GI5014@piout.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 20/01/2015 at 11:34:53 +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote : > Le 15/01/2015 22:58, Alexandre Belloni a ?crit : > > In order to remove SOC_SAM9xxx options, stop using HAVE_AT91_DBGUx. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni > > --- > > arch/arm/Kconfig.debug | 6 +++--- > > arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig | 19 ------------------- > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug b/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug > > index e34d24949c6a..42a38731da99 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug > > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig.debug > > @@ -117,17 +117,17 @@ choice > > config AT91_DEBUG_LL_DBGU0 > > bool "Kernel low-level debugging on rm9200, 9260/9g20, 9261/9g10, 9rl, 9x5, 9n12" > > select DEBUG_AT91_UART > > - depends on HAVE_AT91_DBGU0 > > + depends on SOC_AT91RM9200 || SOC_AT91SAM9 > > > > config AT91_DEBUG_LL_DBGU1 > > bool "Kernel low-level debugging on 9263, 9g45 and sama5d3" > > select DEBUG_AT91_UART > > - depends on HAVE_AT91_DBGU1 > > + depends on SOC_AT91SAM9 || SOC_SAMA5 > > > > config AT91_DEBUG_LL_DBGU2 > > bool "Kernel low-level debugging on sama5d4" > > select DEBUG_AT91_UART > > - depends on HAVE_AT91_DBGU2 > > These values are used below in the file: in: > " > default "debug/at91.S" if AT91_DEBUG_LL_DBGU0 || AT91_DEBUG_LL_DBGU1 || \ > AT91_DEBUG_LL_DBGU2 > > " > > So I guess there is a little patch missing: I answer to the > message "[PATCH 5/7] ARM: at91: move debug-macro.S into the common space" by fixing this. > Please tell me if it's okay. > Your correction was right. The patch correcting that was not part of the last rebase. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com