[U-Boot] [PATCH] xilinx_emaclite.c ping-pong macro names
Dear all,
The macro name configuring Ping/Pong didn't match. It has been checked on a Spartan3e Starterkit.
Kind regards, Alain
Dear alain.peteut@space.unibe.ch,
In message 20110415124815.1253591nkjx5al4f@mail.unibe.ch you wrote:
The macro name configuring Ping/Pong didn't match. It has been checked on a Spartan3e Starterkit.
This should probably be part of the commit message.
Your patch has a number of coding style issues: indentation not by TAB, trailing white space, etc. Please fix, then verify by ruinning through checkpatch, and resubmit.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Please find attached the checked patch. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Kind regards, Alain
Quoting Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de:
Dear alain.peteut@space.unibe.ch,
In message 20110415124815.1253591nkjx5al4f@mail.unibe.ch you wrote:
The macro name configuring Ping/Pong didn't match. It has been checked on a Spartan3e Starterkit.
This should probably be part of the commit message.
Your patch has a number of coding style issues: indentation not by TAB, trailing white space, etc. Please fix, then verify by ruinning through checkpatch, and resubmit.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
-- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de Children are natural mimics who act like their parents despite every effort to teach them good manners.
Hi Alain,
Le 15/04/2011 14:49, alain.peteut@space.unibe.ch a écrit :
Please find attached the checked patch. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Please follow the rules for updated patches:
http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/Patches#Sending_updated_patch_versions
(also, while patchwork seems to deal well with patches sent as attachments, please consider sending the patches inline, for instance using 'git send-email' commands. Many of us look at patches in their mail, and just seeing an attachment and having to open it in an external app is a bit of a pain.)
Amicalement,
Dear alain.peteut@space.unibe.ch,
In message 20110415144908.16476jnz1wxcpps4@mail.unibe.ch you wrote:
Please find attached the checked patch. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Please send patches inline. No attachments!
And please stick to the rules with updated versions - mark the version in the Subject, and provide a Changelog. See http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/Patches#Sending_updated_patch_versions
Also, please provide a meaningful Subject: and commit message - I have to admit that I have no idea what this patch is suposed to be about.
/*
- TX - TX_PING & TX_PONG initialization
- TX - TX_PING & TX_PONG initialization */
Why are you messing up a previously correct multinine comment into an incorrect one?
Please undo.
out_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TSR_OFFSET, 0); @@ -155,12 +157,13 @@ static int emaclite_init(struct eth_device *dev, bd_t > *bis) while ((in_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TSR_OFFSET) & XEL_TSR_PROG_MAC_ADDR) != 0) ;
-#ifdef CONFIG_XILINX_EMACLITE_TX_PING_PONG +#ifdef XILINX_EMACLITE_TX_PING_PONG
Why are you making this change? Configurable parameteres are supposed to start with CONFIG_ resp. CONFIG_SYS_ ?
- out_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TPLR_OFFSET, ENET_ADDR_LENGTH);
- out_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TPLR_OFFSET + XEL_BUFFER_OFFSET,
ENET_ADDR_LENGTH);
This change appears to be unrelated to macro names. Please split into separate patches, and provde information what you change and why.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear alain.peteut@space.unibe.ch,
In message 20110415144908.16476jnz1wxcpps4@mail.unibe.ch you wrote:
Please find attached the checked patch. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Please send patches inline. No attachments!
And please stick to the rules with updated versions - mark the version in the Subject, and provide a Changelog. See http://www.denx.de/wiki/view/U-Boot/Patches#Sending_updated_patch_versions
Also, please provide a meaningful Subject: and commit message - I have to admit that I have no idea what this patch is suposed to be about.
/*
- TX - TX_PING & TX_PONG initialization
- TX - TX_PING & TX_PONG initialization */
Why are you messing up a previously correct multinine comment into an incorrect one?
Please undo.
out_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TSR_OFFSET, 0); @@ -155,12 +157,13 @@ static int emaclite_init(struct eth_device *dev, bd_t > *bis) while ((in_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TSR_OFFSET) & XEL_TSR_PROG_MAC_ADDR) != 0) ;
-#ifdef CONFIG_XILINX_EMACLITE_TX_PING_PONG +#ifdef XILINX_EMACLITE_TX_PING_PONG
Why are you making this change? Configurable parameteres are supposed to start with CONFIG_ resp. CONFIG_SYS_ ?
- out_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TPLR_OFFSET, ENET_ADDR_LENGTH);
- out_be32 (emaclite.baseaddress + XEL_TPLR_OFFSET + XEL_BUFFER_OFFSET,
ENET_ADDR_LENGTH);This change appears to be unrelated to macro names. Please split into separate patches, and provde information what you change and why.
I have found this old post. Just some my comments.
1. Wolfgang if you see any patches for xilinx fpga and microblaze and I don't reply that posts for a while, please ping me. I am more focus on other things and not checking u-boot malling list so often - it will be better soon.
2. This change is caused by misunderstanding of xparameters.h for microblaze/xilinx ppc boards. If someone wants to use looong xilinx xparameters from EDK/SDK project, not the correct one generated by u-boot bsp, reach problems like this and wants to rename it. The reason why I decided several years ago to use u-boot BSP was that new xparameters.h in board contains just minimum parameters which are important for u-boot. It wasn't and I believe it is unacceptable to add hundreds line with unimportant macros which are totally unrelated to u-boot.
Thanks, Michal
Dear Michal Simek,
In message 4E561EB2.1010207@monstr.eu you wrote:
- Wolfgang if you see any patches for xilinx fpga and microblaze and I don't reply
that posts for a while, please ping me. I am more focus on other things and not checking u-boot malling list so often - it will be better soon.
Sorry, but I don't have time and resources to track things like that - there are way too many custodians and developers out there that I could maintain a list of unanswered mails for each of them.
- This change is caused by misunderstanding of xparameters.h for microblaze/xilinx ppc boards.
If someone wants to use looong xilinx xparameters from EDK/SDK project, not the correct one generated by u-boot bsp, reach problems like this and wants to rename it. The reason why I decided several years ago to use u-boot BSP was that new xparameters.h in board contains just minimum parameters which are important for u-boot. It wasn't and I believe it is unacceptable to add hundreds line with unimportant macros which are totally unrelated to u-boot.
I'm afraid I don;t understand what you want to tell me here. In any case, the patch cannot be applied as is, so if there are parts of it that should be merged it has to be reposted anyway.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
participants (4)
-
alain.peteut＠space.unibe.ch -
Albert ARIBAUD -
Michal Simek -
Wolfgang Denk