On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 09:41:51AM -0700, Jiandong Zheng wrote:I meant I created the same patch and have tested it. But if acked-by or reviewed-by is less confusing, I am OK with it.On 8/23/2011 4:18 AM, Maxin B. John wrote:CC arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.oSigned-off-by: Jiandong Zheng<jdzheng@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c: In function 'bcmring_init_timer':
arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c:238: error: implicit declaration of
function 'sp804_clockevents_register'
make[1]: *** [arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.o] Error 1
make: *** [arch/arm/mach-bcmring] Error 2
Please let me know your comments on this fix:
Signed-off-by: Maxin B. John<maxin.john@xxxxxxxxx>
---
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c b/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c
index 43eadbc..430da12 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-bcmring/core.c
@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ void __init bcmring_init_timer(void)
*/
bcmring_clocksource_init();
- sp804_clockevents_register(TIMER0_VA_BASE, IRQ_TIMER0, "timer0");
+ sp804_clockevents_init(TIMER0_VA_BASE, IRQ_TIMER0, "timer0");
}
struct sys_timer bcmring_timer = {
Don't you mean acked-by or reviewed-by?
To avoid this, should I submit every patch to patch system after reviewed through maillist?
The same changes was in my comments on May 17 to Russell's serial
patches to convert to sp804 clk dev, but seems it got lost.
Unfortunately... sorry about that.