From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from VA3EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (va3ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.16]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DE921007D4 for ; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 03:54:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail80-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail80-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BA1C530474 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 17:54:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from VA3EHSMHS031.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.235]) by mail80-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D61618F8051 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 17:54:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from az33smr01.freescale.net (az33smr01.freescale.net [10.64.34.199]) by az33egw02.freescale.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o75HsGS4003756 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 10:54:16 -0700 (MST) Received: from az33exm25.fsl.freescale.net (az33exm25.am.freescale.net [10.64.32.16]) by az33smr01.freescale.net (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id o75I5cbY014234 for ; Thu, 5 Aug 2010 13:05:38 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2010 12:54:15 -0500 From: Scott Wood To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] fsl_rio: fix compile errors Message-ID: <20100805125415.3a939502@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net> In-Reply-To: References: <1276842263-4186-1-git-send-email-leoli@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 12:39:48 -0500 Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2010, at 1:24 AM, Li Yang wrote: > > > Fixes the following compile problem on E500 platforms: > > arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_rio.c: In function 'fsl_rio_mcheck_exception': > > arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_rio.c:248: error: 'MCSR_MASK' undeclared (first use in this function) > > > > Also fixes the compile problem on non-E500 platforms. > > > > Signed-off-by: Li Yang > > --- > > arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_rio.c | 6 +++++- > > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > I'm confused is this handler not relevant for e500MC? The 2nd patch makes me thing it is. It is, though it needs to use a different MCSR bit on e500mc. Are you referring to the #ifdef CONFIG_E500? CONFIG_PPC_E500MC depends on CONFIG_E500... -Scott