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: seedshopebocui107@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,