From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932598AbaGEOnQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jul 2014 10:43:16 -0400 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:44597 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753005AbaGEOnP (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Jul 2014 10:43:15 -0400 Message-ID: <53B80EFC.6020504@infradead.org> Date: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 07:43:08 -0700 From: Randy Dunlap User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nicholas Krause , ralf@linux-mips.org CC: jchandra@broadcom.com, blogic@openwrt.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] mips: Add #ifdef in file bridge.h References: <1404528619-3715-1-git-send-email-xerofoify@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1404528619-3715-1-git-send-email-xerofoify@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 07/04/2014 07:50 PM, Nicholas Krause wrote: > This patch addes a #ifdef __ASSEMBLY__ in order to check if this part > of the file is configured to fix this #ifdef block in bridge.h for mips. > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Krause > --- > arch/mips/include/asm/netlogic/xlp-hal/bridge.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/netlogic/xlp-hal/bridge.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/netlogic/xlp-hal/bridge.h > index 3067f98..4f315c3 100644 > --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/netlogic/xlp-hal/bridge.h > +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/netlogic/xlp-hal/bridge.h > @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ > #define BRIDGE_GIO_WEIGHT 0x2cb > #define BRIDGE_FLASH_WEIGHT 0x2cc > > -/* FIXME verify */ > +#ifdef __ASSEMBLY__ > #define BRIDGE_9XX_FLASH_BAR(i) (0x11 + (i)) > #define BRIDGE_9XX_FLASH_BAR_LIMIT(i) (0x15 + (i)) > > Hi, Where is the corresponding #endif ? The #endif at line 185 goes with the #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ at line 176. I think that this patch will cause a build error (or at least a warning). Did you test it? -- ~Randy