[U-Boot] [PATCH] AT91 rework: pm9261, pm9263 and pm9g45
Hello,
I got several instances of the patches, probably you got it too, so I apology for the mess.
Here is the list of patches:
[PM9261] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99663/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99665/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99666/
[PM9263] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99662/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99668/
[PM9G45] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99664/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99667/
Regards, Asen
Dear Asen Dimov,
Hello,
I got several instances of the patches, probably you got it too, so I apology for the mess.
Actually, I did get none per e-Mail, I see them in patchworks only.
Here is the list of patches:
The empty reset_timer() function added there can obviously only solve build issues. On any account reset_timer() must not be used anymore. As such this patch must get a NAK.
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99665/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99666/
[PM9263] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99662/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99668/
[PM9G45] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99664/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99667/
I will check on those 6 remaining patches now.
Best Regards, Reinhard
Am 09.06.2011 12:57, schrieb Reinhard Meyer:
Dear Asen Dimov,
Hello,
I got several instances of the patches, probably you got it too, so I apology for the mess.
Actually, I did get none per e-Mail, I see them in patchworks only.
Here is the list of patches:
The empty reset_timer() function added there can obviously only solve build issues. On any account reset_timer() must not be used anymore. As such this patch must get a NAK.
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99665/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99666/
[PM9263] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99662/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99668/
[PM9G45] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99664/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99667/
Ah, and patches should be numbered 1/n .. n/n; 0/n is only for a descriptive summary.
Best Regards, Reinhard
Hi Reinhard,
On 06/09/2011 02:00 PM, Reinhard Meyer wrote: ...
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99665/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99666/
[PM9263] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99662/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99668/
[PM9G45] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99664/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99667/
Ah, and patches should be numbered 1/n .. n/n; 0/n is only for a descriptive summary.
should I repost them numbering with 1/n?
Best Regards, Reinhard
Regards, Asen
Dear Asen Dimov,
Hi Reinhard,
On 06/09/2011 02:00 PM, Reinhard Meyer wrote: ...
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99665/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99666/
[PM9263] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99662/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99668/
[PM9G45] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99664/ http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/99667/
Ah, and patches should be numbered 1/n .. n/n; 0/n is only for a descriptive summary.
should I repost them numbering with 1/n?
After applying, the text within [] is gone anyway, so it is ok for me.
Unless someone mandates otherwise...
Best Regards, Reinhard
Hello Reinhard,
On 06/09/2011 01:57 PM, Reinhard Meyer wrote: ...
Dear Asen Dimov, The empty reset_timer() function added there can obviously only solve build issues. On any account reset_timer() must not be used anymore. As such this patch must get a NAK.
The architectures, except AT91 are using reset_timer() to make epochs (start from zero). I don't want to break the other architectures and I need the CFI driver for pm92613 and pm9261. I can not think of another idea, except an empty reset_timer(). Any suggestions, ideas? ...
Best Regards, Reinhard _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Regards, Asen
Dear Asen Dimov,
Hello Reinhard,
On 06/09/2011 01:57 PM, Reinhard Meyer wrote: ...
Dear Asen Dimov, The empty reset_timer() function added there can obviously only solve build issues. On any account reset_timer() must not be used anymore. As such this patch must get a NAK.
The architectures, except AT91 are using reset_timer() to make epochs (start from zero). I don't want to break the other architectures and I need the CFI driver for pm92613 and pm9261. I can not think of another idea, except an empty reset_timer(). Any suggestions, ideas?
1. an empty reset_timer() will allow you to build, but at runtime it must break.
2._if_ the current CFI driver is based on reset_timer() that should actually be fixed there. Whereby the actual impact on other architectures that have a broken get_timer() implementation and therefore _require_ reset_timer() is unclear to me. We just had a lengthy discussion about timer API etc. In essence, this discussion, whatever exact API will be implemented, resulted in NOT having any reset_timer() and only a monotonous, millisecond returning get_timer() function.
The only _interim_ solution would be to reintroduce the original reset_timer() to AT91, which I am NOT fond of.
Wolfgang?
Best Regards, Reinhard
participants (2)
-
Reinhard Meyer -
RONETIX - Asen Dimov