[PATCH 1/1] ARM: cns3xxx: Fixup the missing second parameter to addruart macro to allow them to build.

[Lin Mac]

2010/11/15 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de>:
> Hello Russell,
>
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 09:27:28AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:01:46AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 06:01:54AM +0800, mkl0301 at gmail.com wrote:
>> > > From: Mac Lin <mkl0301 at gmail.com>
>> > >
>> > > Fixup the missing second parameter to addruart macro to allow them to build,
>> > > according to to commit 0e17226f7cd289504724466f4298abc9bdfca3fe.
>> > >
>> > > Enabling DEBUG in head.S would cause:
>> > > rch/arm/boot/compressed/head.S: Assembler messages:
>> > > arch/arm/boot/compressed/head.S:1037: Error: too many positional arguments
>> > > arch/arm/boot/compressed/head.S:1055: Error: too many positional arguments
>> > >
>> > > Signed-off-by: Mac Lin <mkl0301 at gmail.com>
>> > > ---
>> > >  arch/arm/mach-cns3xxx/include/mach/debug-macro.S |    2 +-
>> > >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-cns3xxx/include/mach/debug-macro.S b/arch/arm/mach-cns3xxx/include/mach/debug-macro.S
>> > > index d16ce7e..9b50442 100644
>> > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-cns3xxx/include/mach/debug-macro.S
>> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-cns3xxx/include/mach/debug-macro.S
>> > > @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
>> > >   * published by the Free Software Foundation.
>> > >   */
>> > >
>> > > -         .macro  addruart,rx
>> > > +         .macro  addruart,rx,rtmp
>> > >           mrc     p15, 0, \rx, c1, c0
>> > >           tst     \rx, #1                 @ MMU enabled?
>> > >           moveq   \rx,      #0x10000000
>> > This doesn't apply to current Russell's (or Linus') tree.  (And is wrong
>> > there BTW.)  Which version does your patch apply to?
>> Uwe,
>>
>> I know you're trying to help by acking all patches you can find, but
> hmm, do you consider that good or bad?  Note I don't do this using
> procmail or such :-)
>
>> you need to think a little deeper first, otherwise you're going to
>> create confusion.  This is the second instance this morning...
>>
>> For instance, with this patch it isn't applicable to the current -rc -
>> which builds fine.  This patch is addressing an issue on 2.6.35 and
>> 2.6.36 kernels, and applies fine there.  I've already forwarded this
>> to the stable kernel maintainers, along with a note explaining why
>> the usual rule of "get it into Linus' tree first" can't apply.
> That's what I suspected, so I asked about the version the patch applies
> to.  IMHO this is a valueable information for the commit log or the
> patch description that doesn't make it into git.
>
> My intention was to reduce confusion and I wonder who do you think will
> be confused by my email?

I'm terribly sorry for not adding the kernel source and version information.

The patch is base on Catalin's tree, which based on 2.6.36 of Linus' tree.
It is tested on 2.6.36 mostly, but should be able to be applied on
2.6.35 as well.

I was not aware of the changes in 2.6.37-rc1. It seems ok for building
image with DEBUG enabled.

Best Regards,
Mac Lin