On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:56:36PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:35:55PM +0200, Kamil Lulko wrote:
Strange, this was already posted by Kunhua Huang - then reverted in commit 698a12bef9e782dcd99c555a739c16eec8669f14. Anyway, yes this carriage return should be added there. I simply forgot it since I had implicit CR for each LF turned on in my terminal. Never thought this would cause so much havoc for users ;)
I reverted it since the author said it wasn't needed with the other patch they did being applied. Daniel, can you confirm the odd behavior exists with top of tree? Thanks!
-- Tom
Sorry about my wrong expression.
In these two patch "[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] stm32f4: fix serial output" and "[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] stm32f4: add serial print port" , there are same and similar code as below.
In "[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] stm32f4: fix serial output" :
struct stm32_serial *usart = (struct stm32_serial *)USART_BASE; + + if (c == '\n') + stm32_serial_putc('\r'); + while ((readl(&usart->sr) & USART_SR_FLAG_TXE) == 0) ; writel(c, &usart->dr);
In "[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] stm32f4: add serial print port" :
- struct stm32_serial *usart = (struct stm32_serial *)USART_BASE; + struct stm32_serial *usart = + (struct stm32_serial *)usart_base[USART_PORT]; + + if (c == '\n') + stm32_serial_putc('\r'); + while ((readl(&usart->sr) & USART_SR_FLAG_TXE) == 0) ; writel(c, &usart->dr);
If these "two patch" patch at the same time, it may happened conflict.
I have reply the mail in "[U-Boot] [U-Boot,v2] stm32f4: add serial print port" as below,
Sorry about the mistake of this patch. This patch has already include "[PATCH v2] stm32f4: fix serial output". If adopt this patch, patch "[PATCH v2] stm32f4: fix serial output" need to be discarded.
This means that "add serial print port" has already include "stm32f4: fix serial output". So, if patch "add serial print port", then patch "stm32f4: fix serial output" should not be patch.
But patch these "two patch" and then revert it. It will cause the code disappear.
Thanks to Daniel Thompson.