From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com Subject: Re: ARCH_OMAP243x vs. ARCH_OMAP2430 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 15:54:26 -0400 Message-ID: <20070403195424.GF24864@atomide.com> References: <45F73916.2000504@mvista.com> <3B6D69C3A9EBCA4BA5DA60D9130274298A29FE@dlee13.ent.ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3B6D69C3A9EBCA4BA5DA60D9130274298A29FE@dlee13.ent.ti.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-omap-open-source-bounces@linux.omap.com Errors-To: linux-omap-open-source-bounces@linux.omap.com To: "Woodruff, Richard" Cc: OMAP-Linux List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org * Woodruff, Richard [070313 20:02]: > > But in the MUSB code as well as prcm-regs.h there are #ifdefs for > > OMAP243X. Are there other 243x platforms in the wild, or should I > just > > convert these #ifdefs to 2430. If converting is the right thing, > here's > > a patch. > > Those 243X's are used in MV and TI trees. I don't think the GIT one > used it. They probably snuck in on your end or in previous pushes > candidates from others. > > They all have to be the same for sure. Looks like a good thing to fix. This is now pushed too. Tony