Re: [PATCH][AT91] Fix compile error for at91rm9200 in latest git

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:14:29AM +0100, Jan Altenberg wrote: > Hi all, > > > > Your patch looks correct, and seems to be the only obvious chunk > > > that's missing. So, I'll ack it FWIW ... usual policy for these > > > patches is to go through Russell. > > > > You can add my Ack for what

Re: [PATCH][AT91] Fix compile error for at91rm9200 in latest git

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:14:29AM +0100, Jan Altenberg wrote: Hi all, Your patch looks correct, and seems to be the only obvious chunk that's missing. So, I'll ack it FWIW ... usual policy for these patches is to go through Russell. You can add my Ack for what it's worth. OK,

Re: [PATCH][AT91] Fix compile error for at91rm9200 in latest git

Hi all, > > Your patch looks correct, and seems to be the only obvious chunk > > that's missing. So, I'll ack it FWIW ... usual policy for these > > patches is to go through Russell. > > You can add my Ack for what it's worth. OK, CC'ed Russell and added your Acked-by. Signed-off-by: Jan

Re: [PATCH][AT91] Fix compile error for at91rm9200 in latest git

Hi all, Your patch looks correct, and seems to be the only obvious chunk that's missing. So, I'll ack it FWIW ... usual policy for these patches is to go through Russell. You can add my Ack for what it's worth. OK, CC'ed Russell and added your Acked-by. Signed-off-by: Jan Altenberg

Re: [PATCH][AT91] Fix compile error for at91rm9200 in latest git

hi, > Which is a combination of two patches, which seems to have dropped the > chunk you show below. The reason this seems to have my signoff is > that I originated one of those patches, and parts of the second, but > in fact I had never seen f230d3f53d72d05bcb5666ab7e2eccd49c8b3a15 > until

Re: [PATCH][AT91] Fix compile error for at91rm9200 in latest git

On Monday 03 December 2007, Jan Altenberg wrote: > > at91rm9200ek doesn't compile in latest git: > ... > The offending commit is: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] linux-2.6]$ git-bisect good > f230d3f53d72d05bcb5666ab7e2eccd49c8b3a15 is first bad commit > commit f230d3f53d72d05bcb5666ab7e2eccd49c8b3a15 >

[PATCH][AT91] Fix compile error for at91rm9200 in latest git

Hi, at91rm9200ek doesn't compile in latest git: /here/workdir/linux-2.6/at91rm9200ek/src/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-ek.c: In function `ek_board_init': /here/workdir/linux-2.6/at91rm9200ek/src/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-ek.c:148: error: `ek_i2c_devices' undeclared (first use in this function)

[PATCH][AT91] Fix compile error for at91rm9200 in latest git

Hi, at91rm9200ek doesn't compile in latest git: /here/workdir/linux-2.6/at91rm9200ek/src/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-ek.c: In function `ek_board_init': /here/workdir/linux-2.6/at91rm9200ek/src/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-ek.c:148: error: `ek_i2c_devices' undeclared (first use in this function)

Re: [PATCH][AT91] Fix compile error for at91rm9200 in latest git

On Monday 03 December 2007, Jan Altenberg wrote: at91rm9200ek doesn't compile in latest git: ... The offending commit is: [EMAIL PROTECTED] linux-2.6]$ git-bisect good f230d3f53d72d05bcb5666ab7e2eccd49c8b3a15 is first bad commit commit f230d3f53d72d05bcb5666ab7e2eccd49c8b3a15 Author:

Re: [PATCH][AT91] Fix compile error for at91rm9200 in latest git

hi, Which is a combination of two patches, which seems to have dropped the chunk you show below. The reason this seems to have my signoff is that I originated one of those patches, and parts of the second, but in fact I had never seen f230d3f53d72d05bcb5666ab7e2eccd49c8b3a15 until after