[PATCH] powerpc/fsl_rio: Fix compile error when CONFIG_FSL_RIO not set

arch/powerpc/kernel/built-in.o: In function `machine_check_e500mc':
arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c:429: undefined reference to `fsl_rio_mcheck_exception'
arch/powerpc/kernel/built-in.o: In function `machine_check_e500': arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c:519:
undefined reference to `fsl_rio_mcheck_exception'
make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1

Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <redacted>
---
 arch/powerpc/include/asm/rio.h |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rio.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rio.h
index d902abd..b1d2dec 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rio.h
+++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/rio.h

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@
 #define ASM_PPC_RIO_H
 
 extern void platform_rio_init(void);
-#ifdef CONFIG_RAPIDIO
+#ifdef CONFIG_FSL_RIO
 extern int fsl_rio_mcheck_exception(struct pt_regs *);
 #else
 static inline int fsl_rio_mcheck_exception(struct pt_regs *regs) {return 0; }

-- 
1.7.3.4

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Kumar Gala [off-list ref] wrote:

arch/powerpc/kernel/built-in.o: In function `machine_check_e500mc':
arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c:429: undefined reference to `fsl_rio_mcheck_exception'
arch/powerpc/kernel/built-in.o: In function `machine_check_e500': arch/powerpc/kernel/traps.c:519:
undefined reference to `fsl_rio_mcheck_exception'
make: *** [.tmp_vmlinux1] Error 1

Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <redacted>

Should be Reported-by Timur, right?

josh

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Josh Boyer [off-list ref] wr=
ote:

Should be Reported-by Timur, right?

Technically, yes.  For the record, I don't care about these things.
It implies that only willing to report the problem, but too lazy to
fix it; which is true, but I'd hate to see that fact permanently
etched in the git history. :-)

--=20
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale=

On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 07:11:18PM +0000, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Josh Boyer [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Should be Reported-by Timur, right?

Technically, yes.  For the record, I don't care about these things.
It implies that only willing to report the problem, but too lazy to
fix it; which is true, but I'd hate to see that fact permanently
etched in the git history. :-)

So for you, that might hold true.  (You said it, not me.)  But for some,
they can report compile errors but might not have the technical ability
to fix it.  They're still learning, or they are using randconfig and
don't understand the arch/interaction, etc.  The tag has value.

josh