From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3F65B091.1020802@imc-berlin.de> Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2003 14:29:05 +0200 From: Steven Scholz MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linuxppc-Embedded Subject: Re: Problems w/ CONFIG_BLK_DEV_MPC8xx_IDE References: <3F656CFC.1050706@imc-berlin.de> <3F65A2FD.3010904@imc-berlin.de> <1063627208.14615.21.camel@trantor.staff.proxad.net> In-Reply-To: <1063627208.14615.21.camel@trantor.staff.proxad.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Hubert Figuiere wrote: > On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 13:31, Steven Scholz wrote: > > >>The BK linuxppc_2_4_devel tree has another problem as well: >> >>drivers/ide/idedriver.o: In function `probe_hwif': >>drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): undefined reference to `wait_hwif_ready' >>drivers/ide/idedriver.o(.text+0x11a30): relocation truncated to fit: R_PPC_REL24 >>wait_hwif_ready >> >>ide-probe.c contains a call for wait_hwif_ready(), which is not defined. >>This function exisists in the vanilla source though! >> >>I supposed something went wrong while merging/syncing the IDE changes from the >>official tree... > > > Change 'wait_hwif_ready' by 'ide_wait_hwif_ready' in both ide-probe.c > and ide.c Ok. This obviously fixes it. I just noticed that I might have used the wrong source tree. So which is the BK tree to use: linuxppc_2_4_devel or linuxppc-2.4 ??? Thanks, Steven ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/