Hi,
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Rabin Vincent <rabin@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 20:15, <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> static struct platform_device* __init omap4_init_pmu(void)
>> {
>> int id = -1;
>> @@ -420,6 +472,10 @@ static struct platform_device* __init omap4_init_pmu(void)
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> + omap4_pmu_data.handle_irq = omap4_pmu_handler;
>> + omap4_pmu_data.enable_irq = omap4_enable_cti;
>> + omap4_pmu_data.disable_irq = omap4_disable_cti;
>> +
>> pd = omap_device_build_ss(dev_name, id, oh, 3, &omap4_pmu_data,
>> sizeof(omap4_pmu_data),
>> omap_pmu_latency,
>> @@ -440,7 +496,9 @@ static void __init omap_init_pmu(void)
>> pd = omap4_init_pmu();
>> if (!pd)
>> return;
>> - omap_device_enable(pd);
>> +
>> + omap_device_enable(&od->pdev);
>> + omap4_configure_pmu_irq();
>
> This doesn't build, because there's no "od" in this function. I guess
> you shouldn't be changing the omap_device_enable() call.
Yes, you are right. Looks like this version is against linus tree, and
I have another version against -next tree, which uses the latest
'debugss' module and will be sent out later.
thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
