From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <vbordug@ru.mvista.com>
Received: from buildserver.ru.mvista.com (unknown [85.21.88.6])
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 949D067F26
	for <linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org>;
	Tue, 14 Nov 2006 05:45:37 +1100 (EST)
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:45:36 +0300
From: Vitaly Bordug <vbordug@ru.mvista.com>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] CPM_UART: Fix non-console initialisation (v2)
Message-ID: <20061113214536.3f014ad6@vitb.ru.mvista.com>
In-Reply-To: <17752.16589.182362.143760@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611011457490.3387@host32.eke.fi>
	<17748.21645.621069.105453@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
	<a425f86c0611100345h40b104cchdb766e35f1767656@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0611101359200.25024@host32.eke.fi>
	<17749.46096.241328.470093@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
	<20061113112230.4c1af7b0@localhost.localdomain>
	<17752.16589.182362.143760@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List
	<linuxppc-embedded.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-embedded-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-embedded-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-embedded-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:54:21 +1100
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:

> Vitaly Bordug writes:
> 
> > patch with proper description inlined.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > -Vitaly
> > ---
> > [POWERPC] CPM_UART: Fixes inconsistency of function definition
> > 
> > From: Kalle Pokki <kalle.pokki@iki.fi>
> > 
> > The below hunk was missed from the recent patch, and now, there are somewhat 
> > inconsistent definitions:
> 
> Well, what I want to know is this: why was the addition of __init
> bundled in with what I was told was a bug-fix that was needed for
> 2.6.19?  Does the addition of __init fix a bug somehow?
> 
> 
That wasn't for .19 - I assumed your comment as -ENO_PROPER_DESCRIPTION.
The issue is small but shouldn't be put aside.


-- 
Sincerely, 
Vitaly