[U-Boot] Typo fix: use CONFIG_SOC_DM644X, not CONFIG_SOC_DM646.

[Scott Wood]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 04:29:04PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 July 2009, Scott Wood wrote:
> > I fixed the obvious merge conflict (missing #endif) in "davinci_nand:
> > cleanup I (minor)", but I'm a little confused since the symbol it refers
> > to (CONFIG_SOC_DM6446) doesn't seem to be defined anywhere.  At first I
> > thought it had been replaced with CONFIG_SOC_DM644X, but that doesn't
> > seem to be the case -- AFAICT, there never was a definition of
> > CONFIG_SOC_DM6446 in the tree.  There is one other place in the tree
> > that ifdefs based on it, though (cpu/arm926ejs/davinci/cpu.c).
> > 
> > David, any thoughts?  If this is in error, could you send a followup
> > patch?
> 
> That should have been CONFIG_SOC_DM644X in the first place, yes.
> 
> 
> ========== CUT HERE
> From: David Brownell <dbrownell at users.sourceforge.net>
> 
> Typo fix: use CONFIG_SOC_DM644X, not CONFIG_SOC_DM646.
> 
> Signed-off-by: David Brownell <dbrownell at users.sourceforge.net>

Applied to u-boot-nand-flash.

Wolfgang, I used "Typo fix: use CONFIG_SOC_DM644X, not CONFIG_SOC_DM646."
as the first line of the commit message, which differs from the "Pull
request: nand flash" subject of the outer message that will show up on
the archive list.  Do you want me to resend the patch to the list as an
e-mail with that subject (and if I do, can I then fix the "DM646" typo
and clarify which code the fix is for?), or is the updated subject line
in this e-mail enough?

David, the usage in cpu/arm926ejs/davinci/cpu.c should probably be fixed
as well.

-Scott