[U-Boot] xilinx_emaclite.c ping-pong macro names

Please find attached the checked patch. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Kind regards,
Alain

Quoting Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>:

> Dear alain.peteut@space.unibe.ch,
>
> In message <20110415124815.1253591nkjx5al4f@mail.unibe.ch> you wrote:
>>
>> The macro name configuring  Ping/Pong didn't match. It has been
>> checked on a Spartan3e Starterkit.
>
> This should probably be part of the commit message.
>
>
> Your patch has a number of coding style issues: indentation not by
> TAB, trailing white space, etc.  Please fix, then verify by ruinning
> through checkpatch, and resubmit.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
>
> --
> DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
> HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
> Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
> Children are natural mimics who act like their parents despite  every
> effort to teach them good manners.
>

Hi Alain,

Le 15/04/2011 14:49, alain.peteut@space.unibe.ch a écrit :
> Please find attached the checked patch. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Please follow the rules for updated patches:

<http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/Patches#Sending_updated_patch_versions>

(also, while patchwork seems to deal well with patches sent as 
attachments, please consider sending the patches inline, for instance 
using 'git send-email' commands. Many of us look at patches in their 
mail, and just seeing an attachment and having to open it in an external 
app is a bit of a pain.)

Amicalement,

Dear alain.peteut@space.unibe.ch,

In message <20110415144908.16476jnz1wxcpps4@mail.unibe.ch> you wrote:
>
> Please find attached the checked patch. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Please send patches inline. No attachments!

And please stick to the rules with updated versions - mark the
version in the Subject, and provide a Changelog.  See
http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/Patches#Sending_updated_patch_versions

Also, please provide a meaningful Subject: and commit message - I have
to admit that I have no idea what this patch is suposed to be about.

>  /*
> - * TX - TX_PING & TX_PONG initialization
> +  TX - TX_PING & TX_PONG initialization
>   */

Why are you messing up a previously correct multinine comment into an
incorrect one?

Please undo.

>  	out_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TSR_OFFSET, 0);
> @@ -155,12 +157,13 @@ static int emaclite_init(struct eth_device *dev, bd_t > *bis)
>  	while ((in_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TSR_OFFSET) &
>  		XEL_TSR_PROG_MAC_ADDR) != 0) ;
>  
> -#ifdef CONFIG_XILINX_EMACLITE_TX_PING_PONG
> +#ifdef XILINX_EMACLITE_TX_PING_PONG

Why are you making this change?  Configurable parameteres are supposed
to start with CONFIG_ resp. CONFIG_SYS_ ?

> -	out_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TPLR_OFFSET, ENET_ADDR_LENGTH);
> +	out_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TPLR_OFFSET + XEL_BUFFER_OFFSET,
> +		ENET_ADDR_LENGTH);

This change appears to be unrelated to macro names.  Please split
into separate patches, and provde information what you change and why.



Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear alain.peteut@space.unibe.ch,
> 
> In message <20110415144908.16476jnz1wxcpps4@mail.unibe.ch> you wrote:
>> Please find attached the checked patch. Sorry for the inconvenience.
> 
> Please send patches inline. No attachments!
> 
> And please stick to the rules with updated versions - mark the
> version in the Subject, and provide a Changelog.  See
> http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/Patches#Sending_updated_patch_versions
> 
> Also, please provide a meaningful Subject: and commit message - I have
> to admit that I have no idea what this patch is suposed to be about.
> 
>>  /*
>> - * TX - TX_PING & TX_PONG initialization
>> +  TX - TX_PING & TX_PONG initialization
>>   */
> 
> Why are you messing up a previously correct multinine comment into an
> incorrect one?
> 
> Please undo.
> 
>>  	out_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TSR_OFFSET, 0);
>> @@ -155,12 +157,13 @@ static int emaclite_init(struct eth_device *dev, bd_t > *bis)
>>  	while ((in_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TSR_OFFSET) &
>>  		XEL_TSR_PROG_MAC_ADDR) != 0) ;
>>  
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_XILINX_EMACLITE_TX_PING_PONG
>> +#ifdef XILINX_EMACLITE_TX_PING_PONG
> 
> Why are you making this change?  Configurable parameteres are supposed
> to start with CONFIG_ resp. CONFIG_SYS_ ?
> 
>> -	out_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TPLR_OFFSET, ENET_ADDR_LENGTH);
>> +	out_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TPLR_OFFSET + XEL_BUFFER_OFFSET,
>> +		ENET_ADDR_LENGTH);
> 
> This change appears to be unrelated to macro names.  Please split
> into separate patches, and provde information what you change and why.

I have found this old post.
Just some my comments.

1. Wolfgang if you see any patches for xilinx fpga and microblaze and I don't reply
that posts for a while, please ping me. I am more focus on other things and not checking
u-boot malling list so often - it will be better soon.

2. This change is caused by misunderstanding of xparameters.h for microblaze/xilinx ppc boards.
If someone wants to use looong xilinx xparameters from EDK/SDK project, not the correct one generated by u-boot bsp,
reach problems like this and wants to rename it.
The reason why I decided several years ago to use u-boot BSP was that new xparameters.h in board contains
just minimum parameters which are important for u-boot. It wasn't and I believe it is unacceptable to
add hundreds line with unimportant macros which are totally unrelated to u-boot.

Thanks,
Michal

Dear Michal Simek,

In message <4E561EB2.1010207@monstr.eu> you wrote:
>
> 1. Wolfgang if you see any patches for xilinx fpga and microblaze and I don't reply
> that posts for a while, please ping me. I am more focus on other things and not checking
> u-boot malling list so often - it will be better soon.

Sorry, but I don't have time and resources to track things like that -
there are way too many custodians and developers out there that I
could maintain a list of unanswered mails for each of them.

> 2. This change is caused by misunderstanding of xparameters.h for microblaze/xilinx ppc boards.
> If someone wants to use looong xilinx xparameters from EDK/SDK project, not the correct one generated by u-boot bsp,
> reach problems like this and wants to rename it.
> The reason why I decided several years ago to use u-boot BSP was that new xparameters.h in board contains
> just minimum parameters which are important for u-boot. It wasn't and I believe it is unacceptable to
> add hundreds line with unimportant macros which are totally unrelated to u-boot.

I'm afraid I don;t understand what you want to tell me here.   In any
case, the patch cannot be applied as is, so if there are parts of it
that should be merged it has to be reposted anyway.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk