From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 23:56:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:43250 "EHLO linux-mips.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S27024952AbcC3V4USMlCw (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2016 23:56:20 +0200 Received: from scotty.linux-mips.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by scotty.linux-mips.net (8.15.2/8.14.8) with ESMTP id u2ULuJbi019205; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 23:56:19 +0200 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by scotty.linux-mips.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u2ULuJk2019204; Wed, 30 Mar 2016 23:56:19 +0200 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 23:56:18 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: Antony Pavlov Cc: Sudip Mukherjee , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: ath79: fix build failure Message-ID: <20160330215618.GB5275@linux-mips.org> References: <1459351789-24544-1-git-send-email-sudipm.mukherjee@gmail.com> <20160330221329.25ca0849d782e55c0564f139@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160330221329.25ca0849d782e55c0564f139@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 52801 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:13:29PM +0300, Antony Pavlov wrote: > It is very strange because my original patch has this closing brace. > Please see my original patch > https://www.linux-mips.org/archives/linux-mips/2016-03/msg00267.html The patch didn't apply cleanly and I botched resolving it, sorry. I folded the fix into the patch. > Also I suppose that we have no need in detect_memory_region() if we use devicetree, > e.g. > > ath79_detect_sys_type(); > ath79_ddr_ctrl_init(); > + detect_memory_region(0, ATH79_MEM_SIZE_MIN, ATH79_MEM_SIZE_MAX); > + } > > - detect_memory_region(0, ATH79_MEM_SIZE_MIN, ATH79_MEM_SIZE_MAX); "suppose" is a bit weak.. Should I move the detect_memory_region call? Ralf