Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Jul 2007, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > diff --git a/include/asm-mips/sibyte/bcm1480_regs.h
> > b/include/asm-mips/sibyte/bcm1480_regs.h
> > index 2738c13..c34d36b 100644
> > --- a/include/asm-mips/sibyte/bcm1480_regs.h
> > +++ b/include/asm-mips/sibyte/bcm1480_regs.h
> > @@ -227,10 +227,15 @@
> > (A_BCM1480_DUART(chan) + \
> > BCM1480_DUART_CHANREG_SPACING * 3 + (reg))
> > +#define DUART_IMRISR_SPACING 0x20
> > +#define DUART_INCHNG_SPACING 0x10
> > +
> Aren't all the bits in "bcm1480_regs.h" meant to be prefixed with
Appatenly not, guessing from the header's contents.
> If these are to be the same as for the BCM1250, then they
> can probably be defined "in sb1250_regs.h" unconditionally.
> These headers are a horrible mess anyway -- a single definition should be
> enough to access the two DUARTs the BCM1480 seems to have...
Indeed. I just took the path of least resistance to make it work again.