Kumar, Wolfgang I think this is my mistake, I did not take care of checkpatch.
Please let me know , I can submit it again.
Regards Poonam
-----Original Message----- From: Kumar Gala [mailto:galak@kernel.crashing.org] Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:18 PM To: Wolfgang Denk Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; Aggrwal Poonam-B10812 Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 7/7][v2] fsl_ifc: Add the workaround for erratum IFC A-003399(enabled on P1010)
On Oct 18, 2011, at 1:35 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Kumar Gala,
In message <1312555480-13401-8-git-send-email-
galak@kernel.crashing.org> you wrote:
From: Poonam Aggrwal poonam.aggrwal@freescale.com
Issue: Address masking doesn't work properly. When sum of the base address, defined by BA, and memory bank size, defined by AM, exceeds 4GB (0xffff_ffff) then AMASKn[AM] doesn't mask CSPRn[BA] bits.
Impact: This will impact booting when we are reprogramming CSPR0(BA) and AMASK0(AMASK) while executing from NOR Flash.
Workaround: Re-programming of CSPR(BA) and AMASK is done while not executing from NOR Flash. The code which programs the BA and AMASK is executed from
L2-SRAM.
Signed-off-by: Poonam Aggrwal poonam.aggrwal@freescale.com Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala galak@kernel.crashing.org
This commit introdces new build warnings for the following boards:
P1010RDB_36BIT_NOR P1010RDB_NOR P1010RDB_36BIT_NOR_SECBOOT P1010RDB_NOR_SECBOOT
For example:
Configuring for P1010RDB_NOR - Board: P1010RDB, Options: P1010RDB cpu_init_early.c: In function 'cpu_init_early_f': cpu_init_early.c:74: warning: 'l2srbar' may be used uninitialized in this function
Please fix!
Kumar, Poonam - I'm really p*ssed off. Both of you have more than enough of experience to know that you should not submit untested patches. especially here, where I already had to reject this patch because it did not even pass checkpatch:
I wrote in message 20110804212403.3D53221C695@gemini.denx.de:
| Dear Kumar Gala, | | In message | 08144324-BE32-4A54-BC2D-B920F18F3D43@kernel.crashing.org | you wrote: | > | > > Kumar, could you __please__ get used to running your patches | > > throuch checkpatch __before__ submitting? Thanks. | > | > I try to, but not all of them are by me ;) | | I know. But you submitted them, so you are responsible.
This level of neglect is really disappointing.
Wolfgang Denk
If you look at the code I have NO IDEA how to fix this for older GCC. Gripping at me about this isn't fair. I'm sure if I hack something to make gcc-4.2 happy I'm going to piss off gcc-4.6. We can't win.
At some point we have to move off gcc-4.2 as the baseline compiler w/regards to warning and code generation.
- k