[PATCH 1/7] AT91 debug unit typo fix

[Cerrato Renaud]

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 at til-technologies.fr>
---

 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 at lists.infradead.org
>> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox