Sorry. I should have read the posting guidelines beforehand. Should I start another subject for every patch I sent using [PATCH RESEND], or using a reply is acceptable? Signed-off-by: Cerrato Renaud <r.cerrato@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/debug_ll.h | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/debug_ll.h b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/debug_ll.h index 1a85ae4..42728a4 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/debug_ll.h +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/debug_ll.h @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ #include <asm/io.h> #include <mach/hardware.h> -#ifdef COFNIG_HAVE_AT91_DBGU0 +#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_AT91_DBGU0 #define UART_BASE AT91_BASE_DBGU0 #else #define UART_BASE AT91_BASE_DBGU1 -- 1.7.2.5 On 12/03/2013 17:52, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 16:39 Tue 12 Mar , Renaud C. wrote: >> This patch fix the debug unit output by correcting a typo into an #ifdef >> statement. > please resend the whole patch with inline patch > > no review otherwise > > Best Regards, > J. > > >> _______________________________________________ >> barebox mailing list >> barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
