| Message ID | 1295624053-8060-7-git-send-email-bocui107@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Headers | show |
Hello. seedshope wrote: > Since SDRAM init function have already change, So the SDRAM > initial function must be change. This description sounds somewhat tautological... > Signed-off-by: seedshope <bocui107@gmail.com> Your real name is required in the signoff. > --- > board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c | 10 +++++++++- > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > diff --git a/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c b/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c > index 35aa40b..1d03b7a 100644 > --- a/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c > +++ b/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c > @@ -78,10 +78,18 @@ int board_init(void) > return 0; > } > > -int dram_init(void) > +void dram_init_banksize(void) > { > + DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; > + > gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start = PHYS_SDRAM_1; > gd->bd->bi_dram[0].size = PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE; > +} > + > +int dram_init(void) > +{ > + gd->ram_size = get_ram_size((long *)CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE, > + PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE); Could you move this last line more to the right? WBR, Sergei
On 01/22/2011 01:52 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > seedshope wrote: > >> Since SDRAM init function have already change, So the SDRAM >> initial function must be change. > > This description sounds somewhat tautological... If I describe as following: Since SDRAM init function have already change, Modify SDRAM inital function to adapt to it. How about it? > >> Signed-off-by: seedshope <bocui107@gmail.com> > > Your real name is required in the signoff. I use the name for my pen name. It is not problem. > >> --- >> board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c | 10 +++++++++- >> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > >> diff --git a/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c >> b/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c >> index 35aa40b..1d03b7a 100644 >> --- a/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c >> +++ b/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c >> @@ -78,10 +78,18 @@ int board_init(void) >> return 0; >> } >> >> -int dram_init(void) >> +void dram_init_banksize(void) >> { >> + DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; >> + >> gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start = PHYS_SDRAM_1; >> gd->bd->bi_dram[0].size = PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE; >> +} >> + >> +int dram_init(void) >> +{ >> + gd->ram_size = get_ram_size((long *)CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE, >> + PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE); > > Could you move this last line more to the right? Ya, the orig is ok, But I re-do the patch, It is miss. sorry. Thanks seedshope > > WBR, Sergei
On 01/22/2011 02:05 AM, seedshope wrote: > On 01/22/2011 01:52 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >> Hello. >> >> seedshope wrote: >> >>> Since SDRAM init function have already change, So the SDRAM >>> initial function must be change. >> >> This description sounds somewhat tautological... > If I describe as following: > Since SDRAM init function have already change, Modify SDRAM inital > function to adapt to it. > > How about it? >> >>> Signed-off-by: seedshope <bocui107@gmail.com> >> >> Your real name is required in the signoff. > I use the name for my pen name. It is not problem. >> >>> --- >>> board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c | 10 +++++++++- >>> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >>> diff --git a/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c >>> b/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c >>> index 35aa40b..1d03b7a 100644 >>> --- a/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c >>> +++ b/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c >>> @@ -78,10 +78,18 @@ int board_init(void) >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> -int dram_init(void) >>> +void dram_init_banksize(void) >>> { >>> + DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; >>> + >>> gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start = PHYS_SDRAM_1; >>> gd->bd->bi_dram[0].size = PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE; >>> +} >>> + >>> +int dram_init(void) >>> +{ >>> + gd->ram_size = get_ram_size((long *)CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE, >>> + PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE); >> >> Could you move this last line more to the right? > Ya, the orig is ok, But I re-do the patch, It is miss. sorry. Hi Sergei, I feel this may be you e-mail issue. I open my patch, It is display as following: + gd->ram_size = get_ram_size((long *)CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE, + PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE); Thanks, seedshope > > Thanks > seedshope >> >> WBR, Sergei >
Le 21/01/2011 19:15, seedshope a écrit : > On 01/22/2011 02:05 AM, seedshope wrote: >> On 01/22/2011 01:52 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >>> Hello. >>> >>> seedshope wrote: >>> >>>> Since SDRAM init function have already change, So the SDRAM >>>> initial function must be change. >>> >>> This description sounds somewhat tautological... >> If I describe as following: >> Since SDRAM init function have already change, Modify SDRAM inital >> function to adapt to it. >> >> How about it? Still unclear, due to the fact you're using the same three terms ("init/initial, RAM, function") for two apparently different things. >>>> Signed-off-by: seedshope<bocui107@gmail.com> >>> >>> Your real name is required in the signoff. >> I use the name for my pen name. It is not problem. I think Sergei means pen names should not be used. I won't personally pass judgment, but so far I've always seen contributors using their actual names. > I feel this may be you e-mail issue. I open my patch, It is display as > following: > > + gd->ram_size = get_ram_size((long *)CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE, > + PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE); Your patch, pulled from patchwork and viewed in vi, has three tabs on that second line, which does not align properly. You should check your code editor settings re: tabs. Amicalement,
On 01/22/2011 02:29 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Le 21/01/2011 19:15, seedshope a écrit : >> On 01/22/2011 02:05 AM, seedshope wrote: >>> On 01/22/2011 01:52 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >>>> Hello. >>>> >>>> seedshope wrote: >>>> >>>>> Since SDRAM init function have already change, So the SDRAM >>>>> initial function must be change. >>>> This description sounds somewhat tautological... >>> If I describe as following: >>> Since SDRAM init function have already change, Modify SDRAM inital >>> function to adapt to it. >>> >>> How about it? > Still unclear, due to the fact you're using the same three terms > ("init/initial, RAM, function") for two apparently different things. Ya, Maybe, But I don't know to describe it. The patch is only to modify the dram_init() and dram_init_banksize(), Could you help me to describe? Thank you very much！ seedshope >>>>> Signed-off-by: seedshope<bocui107@gmail.com> >>>> Your real name is required in the signoff. >>> I use the name for my pen name. It is not problem. > I think Sergei means pen names should not be used. I won't personally > pass judgment, but so far I've always seen contributors using their > actual names. > ok >> I feel this may be you e-mail issue. I open my patch, It is display as >> following: >> >> + gd->ram_size = get_ram_size((long *)CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE, >> + PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE); > Your patch, pulled from patchwork and viewed in vi, has three tabs on > that second line, which does not align properly. You should check your > code editor settings re: tabs. My patch is ok, I just two tabs in my e-mail, But I sent the mail, It is change. Thanks hongbo > Amicalement,
Le 21/01/2011 19:43, seedshope a écrit : > On 01/22/2011 02:29 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >> Le 21/01/2011 19:15, seedshope a écrit : >>> On 01/22/2011 02:05 AM, seedshope wrote: >>>> On 01/22/2011 01:52 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >>>>> Hello. >>>>> >>>>> seedshope wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Since SDRAM init function have already change, So the SDRAM >>>>>> initial function must be change. >>>>> This description sounds somewhat tautological... >>>> If I describe as following: >>>> Since SDRAM init function have already change, Modify SDRAM inital >>>> function to adapt to it. >>>> >>>> How about it? >> Still unclear, due to the fact you're using the same three terms >> ("init/initial, RAM, function") for two apparently different things. > Ya, Maybe, But I don't know to describe it. > > The patch is only to modify the dram_init() and dram_init_banksize(), > Could you help me to describe? > > Thank you very much！ > seedshope The reason for the change to dram_init is not actually about DRAM. If you look up similar patches, you'll find out it is about not being able to access gd->bd because bd does not exist, and this is so since the ELF relocation was introduced. So some good descriptions could be "do not use gd->bd any more" or "fix dram_init for relocation support", for instance. >>>>>> Signed-off-by: seedshope<bocui107@gmail.com> >>>>> Your real name is required in the signoff. >>>> I use the name for my pen name. It is not problem. >> I think Sergei means pen names should not be used. I won't personally >> pass judgment, but so far I've always seen contributors using their >> actual names. >> > ok >>> I feel this may be you e-mail issue. I open my patch, It is display as >>> following: >>> >>> + gd->ram_size = get_ram_size((long *)CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE, >>> + PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE); >> Your patch, pulled from patchwork and viewed in vi, has three tabs on >> that second line, which does not align properly. You should check your >> code editor settings re: tabs. > My patch is ok, I just two tabs in my e-mail, But I sent the mail, > It is change. Do you send the patch through git format-patch and git send-email? Many e-mail softwares have weird issues when posting git patches, which is why git has its own tools for sending patches via e-mail. > Thanks > hongbo Amicalement,
On 01/22/2011 03:11 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Le 21/01/2011 19:43, seedshope a écrit : > >> On 01/22/2011 02:29 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: >>> Le 21/01/2011 19:15, seedshope a écrit : >>>> On 01/22/2011 02:05 AM, seedshope wrote: >>>>> On 01/22/2011 01:52 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >>>>>> Hello. >>>>>> >>>>>> seedshope wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Since SDRAM init function have already change, So the SDRAM >>>>>>> initial function must be change. >>>>>> This description sounds somewhat tautological... >>>>> If I describe as following: >>>>> Since SDRAM init function have already change, Modify SDRAM inital >>>>> function to adapt to it. >>>>> >>>>> How about it? >>> Still unclear, due to the fact you're using the same three terms >>> ("init/initial, RAM, function") for two apparently different things. >> Ya, Maybe, But I don't know to describe it. >> >> The patch is only to modify the dram_init() and dram_init_banksize(), >> Could you help me to describe? >> >> Thank you very much！ >> seedshope > The reason for the change to dram_init is not actually about DRAM. If > you look up similar patches, you'll find out it is about not being able > to access gd->bd because bd does not exist, and this is so since the ELF > relocation was introduced. So some good descriptions could be "do not > use gd->bd any more" or "fix dram_init for relocation support", for > instance. > ok, >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: seedshope<bocui107@gmail.com> >>>>>> Your real name is required in the signoff. >>>>> I use the name for my pen name. It is not problem. >>> I think Sergei means pen names should not be used. I won't personally >>> pass judgment, but so far I've always seen contributors using their >>> actual names. >>> >> ok >>>> I feel this may be you e-mail issue. I open my patch, It is display as >>>> following: >>>> >>>> + gd->ram_size = get_ram_size((long *)CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE, >>>> + PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE); >>> Your patch, pulled from patchwork and viewed in vi, has three tabs on >>> that second line, which does not align properly. You should check your >>> code editor settings re: tabs. >> My patch is ok, I just two tabs in my e-mail, But I sent the mail, >> It is change. > Do you send the patch through git format-patch and git send-email? Yes, I use the git format-patch and git send-email > Many > e-mail softwares have weird issues when posting git patches, which is > why git has its own tools for sending patches via e-mail. ok Thanks seedshope >> Thanks >> hongbo > Amicalement,
Hi seedshope, Le 22/01/2011 02:56, seedshope a écrit : >>> My patch is ok, I just two tabs in my e-mail, But I sent the mail, >>> It is change. >> Do you send the patch through git format-patch and git send-email? > Yes, I use the git format-patch and git send-email >> Many e-mail softwares have weird issues when posting git patches, >> which is why git has its own tools for sending patches via e-mail. > ok Since you're using git format-patch and git send-email, then your original change is not correctly aligned. I suggest you check your code editor's settings on indentation and use of tabulations, notably the "tab size": tabs should align on 8-space multiples; also check that your editor uses a fixed font -- you never know. >>> Thanks >>> hongbo Amicalement,
Dear seedshope, On 22 January 2011 00:34, seedshope <bocui107@gmail.com> wrote: > Since SDRAM init function have already change, So the SDRAM > initial function must be change. > > Signed-off-by: seedshope <bocui107@gmail.com> > --- > board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c | 10 +++++++++- > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c b/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c > index 35aa40b..1d03b7a 100644 > --- a/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c > +++ b/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c > @@ -78,10 +78,18 @@ int board_init(void) > return 0; > } > > -int dram_init(void) > +void dram_init_banksize(void) > { > + DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; Please remove it. > + > gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start = PHYS_SDRAM_1; > gd->bd->bi_dram[0].size = PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE; Thanks Minkyu Kang
Hi seedshope, seedshope <bocui107 <at> gmail.com> writes: > -int dram_init(void) > +void dram_init_banksize(void) > { > + DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; This declaration should be done on file scope, not in a function. > + > gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start = PHYS_SDRAM_1; > gd->bd->bi_dram[0].size = PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE; > +} > + Best regards, Thomas
On 01/22/2011 03:31 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi seedshope, > > Le 22/01/2011 02:56, seedshope a écrit : > >>>> My patch is ok, I just two tabs in my e-mail, But I sent the mail, >>>> It is change. >>> Do you send the patch through git format-patch and git send-email? > >> Yes, I use the git format-patch and git send-email > >>> Many e-mail softwares have weird issues when posting git patches, >>> which is why git has its own tools for sending patches via e-mail. > >> ok > > Since you're using git format-patch and git send-email, then your > original change is not correctly aligned. I suggest you check your > code editor's settings on indentation and use of tabulations, notably > the "tab size": tabs should align on 8-space multiples; also check > that your editor uses a fixed font -- you never know. Hi Amicalement I check my patch 6 on the http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot, It look fine. I have a bit despondent. Why do you think it has a format problem. Thanks seedshope > > Amicalement,
On 01/22/2011 01:52 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > seedshope wrote: > >> Since SDRAM init function have already change, So the SDRAM >> initial function must be change. > > This description sounds somewhat tautological... > >> Signed-off-by: seedshope <bocui107@gmail.com> > > Your real name is required in the signoff. > >> --- >> board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c | 10 +++++++++- >> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > >> diff --git a/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c >> b/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c >> index 35aa40b..1d03b7a 100644 >> --- a/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c >> +++ b/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c >> @@ -78,10 +78,18 @@ int board_init(void) >> return 0; >> } >> >> -int dram_init(void) >> +void dram_init_banksize(void) >> { >> + DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; >> + >> gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start = PHYS_SDRAM_1; >> gd->bd->bi_dram[0].size = PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE; >> +} >> + >> +int dram_init(void) >> +{ >> + gd->ram_size = get_ram_size((long *)CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE, >> + PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE); You can look at the web site(http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot) for the patch, It is inconsistent with your description. Thanks seedshope > > Could you move this last line more to the right? > > WBR, Sergei
Hi seedshope, Le 22/01/2011 20:23, seedshope a écrit : > Hi Amicalement That's Albert, actually. :) > I check my patch 6 on the > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot, It look fine. > I have a bit despondent. Why do you think it has a format problem. V5 of your patch has one more tab on as V4 had on the line we're discussion. It is a bit better ; Sergei will tell if that's enough for him. > Thanks > seedshope Amicalement,
On 01/23/2011 04:28 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > Hi seedshope, > > Le 22/01/2011 20:23, seedshope a écrit : > >> Hi Amicalement > > That's Albert, actually. :) > >> I check my patch 6 on the >> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot, It look fine. >> I have a bit despondent. Why do you think it has a format problem. > > V5 of your patch has one more tab on as V4 had on the line we're > discussion. It is a bit better ; Sergei will tell if that's enough for > him. yes, I just found the error in web site. I miss something in my thunderbird. such as tab convert space, So the format is change. Here, I beg you to forgot my miss. BR seedshope >> Thanks >> seedshope > > Amicalement,
Dear seedshope, In message <4D3B40AC.8090105@gmail.com> you wrote: > > yes, I just found the error in web site. I miss something in my > thunderbird. such as tab convert space, So the format is change. > Here, I beg you to forgot my miss. It is usually helpful to search for and read the available documentation. See file Documentation/email-clients.txt in your Linux source tree, or: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=Documentation/email-clients.txt Best regards, Wolfgang Denk
diff --git a/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c b/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c index 35aa40b..1d03b7a 100644 --- a/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c +++ b/board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c @@ -78,10 +78,18 @@ int board_init(void) return 0; } -int dram_init(void) +void dram_init_banksize(void) { + DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; + gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start = PHYS_SDRAM_1; gd->bd->bi_dram[0].size = PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE; +} + +int dram_init(void) +{ + gd->ram_size = get_ram_size((long *)CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE, + PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE); return 0; }
Since SDRAM init function have already change, So the SDRAM initial function must be change. Signed-off-by: seedshope <bocui107@gmail.com> --- board/samsung/smdk6400/smdk6400.c | 10 +++++++++- 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)