* Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> [120222 01:30]:
> + Tony, Suman
>
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c: In function 'omap2_mbox_probe':
> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c:354: error: 'omap2_mboxes' undeclared (first use in this function)
> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c:354: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c:354: error: for each function it appears in.)
>
> The below should trivially solve this, but I wonder if there was any
> other merit in explicitly using CONFIG_SOC_OMAP2420 there (any
> different between 2420 and 2430 in that respect ?).
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
> index 609ea2d..e61d275 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/mailbox.c
> @@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ struct omap_mbox mbox_dsp_info = {
> struct omap_mbox *omap3_mboxes[] = { &mbox_dsp_info, NULL };
> #endif
>
> -#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_OMAP2420)
> +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2)
> /* IVA */
> static struct omap_mbox2_priv omap2_mbox_iva_priv = {
> .tx_fifo = {
2430 is like omap3 for the mailbox. So the code we have seems
wrong trying to initialize it like 2420 mailbox. So we either
need a new entry for omap2430_mboxes[], or should just bail
out from the probe for 2430 for the fix.
Regards,
Tony
--
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
