Hi Andreas,
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:35:51 +0200, Andreas Bießmann andreas.devel@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi Albert,
On 04.09.12 21:34, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
Hi Andreas,
On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:17:58 +0200, Andreas Bießmann andreas.devel@googlemail.com wrote:
Dear Albert Aribaud,
On 16.08.12 20:22, Markus Hubig wrote:
The board_postclk_init() function can be used to perform operations that requires a working timer early within the U-Boot init_sequence.
Signed-off-by: Markus Hubig mhubig@imko.de Cc: Albert ARIBAUD albert.u.boot@aribaud.net
arch/arm/lib/board.c | 3 +++ 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/board.c b/arch/arm/lib/board.c index f1951e8..109a1ac 100644 --- a/arch/arm/lib/board.c +++ b/arch/arm/lib/board.c @@ -241,6 +241,9 @@ init_fnc_t *init_sequence[] = { fdtdec_check_fdt, #endif timer_init, /* initialize timer */ +#ifdef CONFIG_BOARD_POSTCLK_INIT
- board_postclk_init,
+#endif #ifdef CONFIG_FSL_ESDHC get_clocks, #endif
how do you think about this suggestion? Will you accept it? Should I apply both patches to u-boot-atmel?
From what I see, this converges with what's been in PPC for a long time... I'm ok with the series going into atmel.
So I add a formal Acked-by from you?
That or just go ahead and apply them to atmel; as the custodian, you don't need my Acked-By.
Best regards
Andreas Bießmann
Amicalement,