[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] 85xx: Fix size of cpu-release-addr property
The cpu-release-addr is defined as always being a 64-bit quanity regardless if we are running on a 32-bit or 64-bit machine. --- cpu/mpc85xx/fdt.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cpu/mpc85xx/fdt.c b/cpu/mpc85xx/fdt.c index bde6d1e..bb87740 100644 --- a/cpu/mpc85xx/fdt.c +++ b/cpu/mpc85xx/fdt.c @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ void ft_fixup_cpu(void *blob, u64 memory_limit) if (*reg == id) { fdt_setprop_string(blob, off, "status", "okay"); } else { - u32 val = *reg * SIZE_BOOT_ENTRY + spin_tbl_addr; + u64 val = *reg * SIZE_BOOT_ENTRY + spin_tbl_addr; val = cpu_to_fdt32(val); fdt_setprop_string(blob, off, "status", "disabled");
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Kumar Gala galak@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
The cpu-release-addr is defined as always being a 64-bit quanity regardless if we are running on a 32-bit or 64-bit machine.
Applied, thanks.
In message Pine.LNX.4.64.0804181128440.6860@blarg.am.freescale.net you wrote:
The cpu-release-addr is defined as always being a 64-bit quanity regardless if we are running on a 32-bit or 64-bit machine.
cpu/mpc85xx/fdt.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Signed-off-by line missing...
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Apr 25, 2008, at 2:16 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message Pine.LNX.4.64.0804181128440.6860@blarg.am.freescale.net you wrote:
The cpu-release-addr is defined as always being a 64-bit quanity regardless if we are running on a 32-bit or 64-bit machine.
cpu/mpc85xx/fdt.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
Signed-off-by line missing...
oops (should have had it). This got into the tree how do you want to deal with it?
- k
In message DCD54745-A286-4E15-93FE-C71CD00AED37@kernel.crashing.org you wrote:
Signed-off-by line missing...
oops (should have had it). This got into the tree how do you want to deal with it?
Oops. Well, that cannot be changed. Maybe you can post the S-o-b , just for the record :-)
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Apr 25, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message <DCD54745-A286-4E15-93FE- C71CD00AED37@kernel.crashing.org> you wrote:
Signed-off-by line missing...
oops (should have had it). This got into the tree how do you want to deal with it?
Oops. Well, that cannot be changed. Maybe you can post the S-o-b , just for the record :-)
done.
- k
participants (3)
-
Andy Fleming -
Kumar Gala -
Wolfgang Denk