From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IwNuF-0006du-Uv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:16:44 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IwNuF-0006d0-72
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:16:43 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IwNuE-0006ci-UH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:16:42 -0500
Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([63.81.120.158])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <akuster@kama-aina.net>) id 1IwNuE-0006mw-N2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:16:42 -0500
Received: from pahoa.hi.kama-aina.net (unknown [10.235.20.2])
	by hermes.mvista.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01341F3EB
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:16:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4749D829.3040103@kama-aina.net>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:16:41 -1000
From: Armin <akuster@kama-aina.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] pflash_register question
References: <4749D5EB.8060308@kama-aina.net>
	<fb249edb0711251213v1f6761a7w674fe5f9d2902ace@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <fb249edb0711251213v1f6761a7w674fe5f9d2902ace@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 25/11/2007, Armin <akuster@kama-aina.net> wrote:
>   
>> I see there are two instances of pflash_register() , one for
>> pflash_cfi01.c and the other in pflash_cfi02.c. In order to get the
>> proper one, I assume we use link order?
>>     
>
> No, ofcourse we will need to rename one of them. To be honest, I
> missed the fact that the functions collide when I merged
> pflash_cfi01.c.
> Regards

Many thanks