| Message ID | 1268150589-27123-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
Mike Frysinger wrote: > The MMR bits are being moved to this header, so include it. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Acked-by: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com> > --- > note: this can be merged for 2.6.34 or 2.6.35 Is it required to make the driver working under 2.6.34? Wolfgang. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 02:41, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: > Mike Frysinger wrote: >> The MMR bits are being moved to this header, so include it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> > > Acked-by: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com> > >> --- >> note: this can be merged for 2.6.34 or 2.6.35 > > Is it required to make the driver working under 2.6.34? not for 2.6.34, but it will be for 2.6.35 -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:17:09 -0500 > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 02:41, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote: >> Mike Frysinger wrote: >>> The MMR bits are being moved to this header, so include it. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> >> >> Acked-by: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com> >> >>> --- >>> note: this can be merged for 2.6.34 or 2.6.35 >> >> Is it required to make the driver working under 2.6.34? > > not for 2.6.34, but it will be for 2.6.35 I'll apply this to net-next-2.6 once I open it up, therefore. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:03:09 -0500 > The MMR bits are being moved to this header, so include it. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> I can't actually apply this since this asm/bfin_can.h header doesn't even exist in the tree yet so this change will break the build. This doesn't make any sense at all, it's impossible to prevent breaking the build unless you add the asm/bfin_can.h header at the same time you do these changes. Why not submit those two things together as one commit instead? Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 00:28, David Miller wrote: > From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> > Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:03:09 -0500 > >> The MMR bits are being moved to this header, so include it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> > > I can't actually apply this since this asm/bfin_can.h header > doesn't even exist in the tree yet so this change will > break the build. Linus was supposed to pull my tree, but if that isnt going to happen for 2.6.34, then just apply the patch for 2.6.35 -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:45:06 -0400 > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 00:28, David Miller wrote: >> From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> >> Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:03:09 -0500 >> >>> The MMR bits are being moved to this header, so include it. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> >> >> I can't actually apply this since this asm/bfin_can.h header >> doesn't even exist in the tree yet so this change will >> break the build. > > Linus was supposed to pull my tree, but if that isnt going to happen > for 2.6.34, then just apply the patch for 2.6.35 That's what I was going to do, apply it to net-next-2.6 but I can't even do that until the asm/bfin_can.h change appears in Linus's tree. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:02, David Miller wrote: > From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 00:28, David Miller wrote: >>> From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> >>>> The MMR bits are being moved to this header, so include it. >>> >>> I can't actually apply this since this asm/bfin_can.h header >>> doesn't even exist in the tree yet so this change will >>> break the build. >> >> Linus was supposed to pull my tree, but if that isnt going to happen >> for 2.6.34, then just apply the patch for 2.6.35 > > That's what I was going to do, apply it to net-next-2.6 > but I can't even do that until the asm/bfin_can.h change > appears in Linus's tree. if the next tree is merged into linux-next, then the header is already there -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:25:39 -0400 > if the next tree is merged into linux-next, then the header is already there One of the highest priority trees in -next is net-next-2.6, because so much other stuff ends up depending upon it. Therefore I keep it building independently, so no matter what Stephen Rothwell does the build isn't likely to break. Just get your stuff merged properly to Linus then resubmit your patch. Else, resubmit with the header addition included. Your choice :-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:51, David Miller wrote: > From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> >> if the next tree is merged into linux-next, then the header is already there > > One of the highest priority trees in -next is net-next-2.6, > because so much other stuff ends up depending upon it. > > Therefore I keep it building independently, so no matter what Stephen > Rothwell does the build isn't likely to break. > > Just get your stuff merged properly to Linus then resubmit > your patch. Linus has pulled my tree, so there shouldnt be any reason to not merge this patch now -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi Mike, your patch is just a cleanup and definitely not mission-critical. Please wait until your needed environment emerges in Dave's net-2.6 or net-next-2.6 tree until you post your patch for the specific tree then. This makes it much easier - at least for Dave. Thanks, Oliver -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Mike Frysinger [mailto:vapier.adi@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 19. März 2010 07:35 An: David Miller Cc: socketcan-core@lists.berlios.de; netdev@vger.kernel.org; uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org; Hartkopp, Oliver (K-EFFI/P); Thuermann, Urs, Dr. (K-EFFI/I) Betreff: Re: [Uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH] can: bfin_can: switch to common Blackfin can header On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:51, David Miller wrote: > From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> >> if the next tree is merged into linux-next, then the header is already there > > One of the highest priority trees in -next is net-next-2.6, > because so much other stuff ends up depending upon it. > > Therefore I keep it building independently, so no matter what Stephen > Rothwell does the build isn't likely to break. > > Just get your stuff merged properly to Linus then resubmit > your patch. Linus has pulled my tree, so there shouldnt be any reason to not merge this patch now -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 02:56, Hartkopp, Oliver (K-EFFI/P) wrote:
> your patch is just a cleanup and definitely not mission-critical.
ive already explained the background for when the patch can be merged.
please read the whole thread before jumping in.
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:35:17 -0400 > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:51, David Miller wrote: >> From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> >>> if the next tree is merged into linux-next, then the header is already there >> >> Just get your stuff merged properly to Linus then resubmit >> your patch. > > Linus has pulled my tree, so there shouldnt be any reason to not merge > this patch now If you can't understand what the heck the word "RESUMBIT" means, then I'm not even going to pay attention to you anymore. I keep telling you to resubmit the thing when it'll work correctly because it makes things 1,000 times easier for me then crawling through the mailing list and patchwork history trying to fish out your patch and figure out if it's the right one or not. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 23:39, David Miller wrote: > From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> >> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 01:51, David Miller wrote: >>> From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> >>>> if the next tree is merged into linux-next, then the header is already there >>> >>> Just get your stuff merged properly to Linus then resubmit >>> your patch. >> >> Linus has pulled my tree, so there shouldnt be any reason to not merge >> this patch now > > If you can't understand what the heck the word "RESUMBIT" means, > then I'm not even going to pay attention to you anymore. > > I keep telling you to resubmit the thing when it'll work correctly > because it makes things 1,000 times easier for me then crawling > through the mailing list and patchwork history trying to fish out > your patch and figure out if it's the right one or not. either you've deleted the thread or your mail client sucks ? the patch in question started this thread you keep replying to ... -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:54:41 -0400 > either you've deleted the thread or your mail client sucks ? the > patch in question started this thread you keep replying to ... You're an idiot and you don't care how much work you are making for me, so you are now set to ignore. When I say "resubmit" I've deleted your patch from my inbox and marked it "changed requested" or similar in patchwork so it doesn't show up in the todo list any more. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 23:58, David Miller wrote: > From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> >> either you've deleted the thread or your mail client sucks ? the >> patch in question started this thread you keep replying to ... > > You're an idiot and you don't care how much work you are > making for me, so you are now set to ignore. clearly this is the best way to work with people > When I say "resubmit" I've deleted your patch from my inbox > and marked it "changed requested" or similar in patchwork > so it doesn't show up in the todo list any more. i missed the relevance of your original "resubmit" because no other maintainer ive worked with so far has exhibited this behavior, and there wasnt any indication as to why a resubmission was necessary considering no changes were made -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:04:48 -0400 > On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 23:58, David Miller wrote: >> From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> >> When I say "resubmit" I've deleted your patch from my inbox >> and marked it "changed requested" or similar in patchwork >> so it doesn't show up in the todo list any more. > > i missed the relevance of your original "resubmit" because no other > maintainer ive worked with so far has exhibited this behavior, and > there wasnt any indication as to why a resubmission was necessary > considering no changes were made So when I ask you to resubmit something you just assume that I have no reason whatsoever for doing so? Do you still feel this way after people other than me also asked you to do the same exact thing for me? Do you think they are making arbitrary requests as well? This is the fatal flaw in your logic and behavior. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 13:17, David Miller wrote: > From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> >> On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 23:58, David Miller wrote: >>> From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> >>> When I say "resubmit" I've deleted your patch from my inbox >>> and marked it "changed requested" or similar in patchwork >>> so it doesn't show up in the todo list any more. >> >> i missed the relevance of your original "resubmit" because no other >> maintainer ive worked with so far has exhibited this behavior, and >> there wasnt any indication as to why a resubmission was necessary >> considering no changes were made > > So when I ask you to resubmit something you just assume that > I have no reason whatsoever for doing so? like i said, the word "resubmit" did not equate exactly with "resend the exact same patch". your e-mail came across (wrt how most every one else ive worked with) as "poke me again when it's ready in mainline". once Linus merged things, i gave you a poke. > Do you still feel this way after people other than me also asked you > to do the same exact thing for me? Do you think they are making > arbitrary requests as well? the only other person to say anything did not say "you now need to resend your patch". it was "please wait until Linus has pulled things and then Dave has pulled things". which was not relevant at the point it was sent. > This is the fatal flaw in your logic and behavior. take a chill pill man -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:09:55 -0400 > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 13:17, David Miller wrote: >> From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> >> Do you still feel this way after people other than me also asked you >> to do the same exact thing for me? Do you think they are making >> arbitrary requests as well? > > the only other person to say anything did not say "you now need to > resend your patch". it was "please wait until Linus has pulled things > and then Dave has pulled things". which was not relevant at the point > it was sent. Wolfgang told you to "just resubmit the patch", just like I asked you to, when you said "the code is there just apply the old one." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 19:36, David Miller wrote: > From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 13:17, David Miller wrote: >>> From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> >>> Do you still feel this way after people other than me also asked you >>> to do the same exact thing for me? Do you think they are making >>> arbitrary requests as well? >> >> the only other person to say anything did not say "you now need to >> resend your patch". it was "please wait until Linus has pulled things >> and then Dave has pulled things". which was not relevant at the point >> it was sent. > > Wolfgang told you to "just resubmit the patch", just like I asked you > to, when you said "the code is there just apply the old one." i see no e-mail from Wolfgang. did he miss some CC's ? or do you mean Oliver ? how about we skip to the end where we agree i'm wrong, you're right, and you just merge the patch that i already resent ... -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:42:43 -0400 > how about we skip to the end where we agree i'm wrong, you're right, > and you just merge the patch that i already resent ... Sure, if you wish to make it clear that you have zero interest in understanding the substance of this issue. What part of: You only have to deal with me, and I have to deal with hundreds of developers, so make my life as simple as possible ok? do you not understand? Multiply every grievance you throw my way by however many other patches, bug reports, and issues I deal with on a given day. I think this is the part you don't get. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 21:48, David Miller wrote: > From: Mike Frysinger >> how about we skip to the end where we agree i'm wrong, you're right, >> and you just merge the patch that i already resent ... > > Sure, if you wish to make it clear that you have zero > interest in understanding the substance of this issue. whatever makes you happy. you dont appear to have much interest in my explanations. -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 21:50:56 -0400 > On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 21:48, David Miller wrote: >> From: Mike Frysinger >>> how about we skip to the end where we agree i'm wrong, you're right, >>> and you just merge the patch that i already resent ... >> >> Sure, if you wish to make it clear that you have zero >> interest in understanding the substance of this issue. > > whatever makes you happy. you dont appear to have much interest in my > explanations. Your explanation is that "resubmit" doesn't really mean "resubmit" even when mutliple people request it of you. And you just think that "just do this" is a simple request when it's thrown at a maintainer like me who has to deal with sometimes hundreds of patch submissions per day. It's _not_. You do it if you don't believe me. I bet you'll have a different view of the world and a different set of expectations after that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 21:57, David Miller wrote: > From: Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@gmail.com> >> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 21:48, David Miller wrote: >>> From: Mike Frysinger >>>> how about we skip to the end where we agree i'm wrong, you're right, >>>> and you just merge the patch that i already resent ... >>> >>> Sure, if you wish to make it clear that you have zero >>> interest in understanding the substance of this issue. >> >> whatever makes you happy. you dont appear to have much interest in my >> explanations. > > Your explanation is that "resubmit" doesn't really mean "resubmit" that is never what i said. read the exact words (or dont, i guess it doesnt matter) -- i said i _thought_ your e-mail was a _poke me when it's ready_. once you actually explained you explicitly wanted a resend, i did so. i additionally asked why because i was curious, not because i wasnt going to resend or i said you were wrong. > You do it if you don't believe me. I bet you'll have a different view > of the world and a different set of expectations after that. i already field multiple reports every single day as maintainer of core Blackfin/Gentoo projects among other things. -mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/net/can/bfin_can.c b/drivers/net/can/bfin_can.c index 0ec1524..680060d 100644 --- a/drivers/net/can/bfin_can.c +++ b/drivers/net/can/bfin_can.c @@ -22,96 +22,13 @@ #include <linux/can/dev.h> #include <linux/can/error.h> +#include <asm/bfin_can.h> #include <asm/portmux.h> #define DRV_NAME "bfin_can" #define BFIN_CAN_TIMEOUT 100 /* - * transmit and receive channels - */ -#define TRANSMIT_CHL 24 -#define RECEIVE_STD_CHL 0 -#define RECEIVE_EXT_CHL 4 -#define RECEIVE_RTR_CHL 8 -#define RECEIVE_EXT_RTR_CHL 12 -#define MAX_CHL_NUMBER 32 - -/* - * bfin can registers layout - */ -struct bfin_can_mask_regs { - u16 aml; - u16 dummy1; - u16 amh; - u16 dummy2; -}; - -struct bfin_can_channel_regs { - u16 data[8]; - u16 dlc; - u16 dummy1; - u16 tsv; - u16 dummy2; - u16 id0; - u16 dummy3; - u16 id1; - u16 dummy4; -}; - -struct bfin_can_regs { - /* - * global control and status registers - */ - u16 mc1; /* offset 0 */ - u16 dummy1; - u16 md1; /* offset 4 */ - u16 rsv1[13]; - u16 mbtif1; /* offset 0x20 */ - u16 dummy2; - u16 mbrif1; /* offset 0x24 */ - u16 dummy3; - u16 mbim1; /* offset 0x28 */ - u16 rsv2[11]; - u16 mc2; /* offset 0x40 */ - u16 dummy4; - u16 md2; /* offset 0x44 */ - u16 dummy5; - u16 trs2; /* offset 0x48 */ - u16 rsv3[11]; - u16 mbtif2; /* offset 0x60 */ - u16 dummy6; - u16 mbrif2; /* offset 0x64 */ - u16 dummy7; - u16 mbim2; /* offset 0x68 */ - u16 rsv4[11]; - u16 clk; /* offset 0x80 */ - u16 dummy8; - u16 timing; /* offset 0x84 */ - u16 rsv5[3]; - u16 status; /* offset 0x8c */ - u16 dummy9; - u16 cec; /* offset 0x90 */ - u16 dummy10; - u16 gis; /* offset 0x94 */ - u16 dummy11; - u16 gim; /* offset 0x98 */ - u16 rsv6[3]; - u16 ctrl; /* offset 0xa0 */ - u16 dummy12; - u16 intr; /* offset 0xa4 */ - u16 rsv7[7]; - u16 esr; /* offset 0xb4 */ - u16 rsv8[37]; - - /* - * channel(mailbox) mask and message registers - */ - struct bfin_can_mask_regs msk[MAX_CHL_NUMBER]; /* offset 0x100 */ - struct bfin_can_channel_regs chl[MAX_CHL_NUMBER]; /* offset 0x200 */ -}; - -/* * bfin can private data */ struct bfin_can_priv { @@ -162,7 +79,7 @@ static int bfin_can_set_bittiming(struct net_device *dev) if (priv->can.ctrlmode & CAN_CTRLMODE_3_SAMPLES) timing |= SAM; - bfin_write16(®->clk, clk); + bfin_write16(®->clock, clk); bfin_write16(®->timing, timing); dev_info(dev->dev.parent, "setting CLOCK=0x%04x TIMING=0x%04x\n", @@ -184,11 +101,11 @@ static void bfin_can_set_reset_mode(struct net_device *dev) bfin_write16(®->gim, 0); /* reset can and enter configuration mode */ - bfin_write16(®->ctrl, SRS | CCR); + bfin_write16(®->control, SRS | CCR); SSYNC(); - bfin_write16(®->ctrl, CCR); + bfin_write16(®->control, CCR); SSYNC(); - while (!(bfin_read16(®->ctrl) & CCA)) { + while (!(bfin_read16(®->control) & CCA)) { udelay(10); if (--timeout == 0) { dev_err(dev->dev.parent, @@ -243,7 +160,7 @@ static void bfin_can_set_normal_mode(struct net_device *dev) /* * leave configuration mode */ - bfin_write16(®->ctrl, bfin_read16(®->ctrl) & ~CCR); + bfin_write16(®->control, bfin_read16(®->control) & ~CCR); while (bfin_read16(®->status) & CCA) { udelay(10); @@ -721,7 +638,7 @@ static int bfin_can_suspend(struct platform_device *pdev, pm_message_t mesg) if (netif_running(dev)) { /* enter sleep mode */ - bfin_write16(®->ctrl, bfin_read16(®->ctrl) | SMR); + bfin_write16(®->control, bfin_read16(®->control) | SMR); SSYNC(); while (!(bfin_read16(®->intr) & SMACK)) { udelay(10);
The MMR bits are being moved to this header, so include it. Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> --- note: this can be merged for 2.6.34 or 2.6.35 drivers/net/can/bfin_can.c | 97 +++---------------------------------------- 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 90 deletions(-)