On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Andy Fleming afleming@freescale.com wrote:
On Aug 10, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Joe Hershberger wrote:
Previously only the last N were included based on the current one in use.
Signed-off-by: Joe Hershberger joe.hershberger@ni.com Cc: Joe Hershberger joe.hershberger@gmail.com Cc: Mingkai Hu Mingkai.hu@freescale.com Cc: Andy Fleming afleming@freescale.com Cc: Kumar Gala galak@kernel.crashing.org Cc: Detlev Zundel dzu@denx.de
I'm curious if you were seeing a problem that this fixes?
I was searching for a performance problem on the MPC8313, and discovered this, which seemed wrong. It was not, however, the source of my problem.
drivers/net/tsec.c | 4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/tsec.c b/drivers/net/tsec.c index 78ffc95..1805ca0 100644 --- a/drivers/net/tsec.c +++ b/drivers/net/tsec.c @@ -250,8 +250,8 @@ static void startup_tsec(struct eth_device *dev) txIdx = 0;
/* Point to the buffer descriptors */
- out_be32(®s->tbase, (unsigned int)(&rtx.txbd[txIdx]));
- out_be32(®s->rbase, (unsigned int)(&rtx.rxbd[rxIdx]));
- out_be32(®s->tbase, (unsigned int)(&rtx.txbd[0]));
- out_be32(®s->rbase, (unsigned int)(&rtx.rxbd[0]));
However, while I don't believe this fixes a technical problem, I believe this makes the code more straightforward.
I agree. It is more straightforward to use 0 explicitly.
So if this is a fix to a problem, we need more information to understand what you're really fixing. If this is just fixing something that looked wrong...:
Acked-by: Andy Fleming afleming@freescale.com
It fixes something that was wrong before you committed 063c12633d5ad74d52152d9c358e715475e17629, but at this point, it's just cosmetic.
Best regards, -Joe