powerpc/mpc8xxx: reword max tCKmin message
PATCH 1/1 powerpc/mpc8xxx: reword max tCKmin message
Reword "The DIMM max tCKmin is" to "The combined tCKmin is". It means the max tCKmin across all DIMMs on the same controller.
--- .../cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/lc_common_dimm_params.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/lc_common_dimm_params.c +1 -1
@@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ compute_cas_latency_ddr3(const dimm_params_t *dimm_params, }/* validate if the memory clk is in the range of dimms */ if (mclk_ps < tCKmin_X_ps) { -printf ("The DIMM max tCKmin is %d ps," +printf ("The combined minimum tCKmin is %d ps," "doesn't support the MCLK cycle %d ps\n" , tCKmin_X_ps, mclk_ps);return 1 ;
Signature · 1 line
1.7.0.4
PATCH 1/1 powerpc/mpc8xxx: reword max tCKmin message
Quoted 3 lines · York Sun
- ? ? ? ? ? ? ? printf("The DIMM max tCKmin is %d ps,"
+ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? printf("The combined minimum tCKmin is %d ps," ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?"doesn't support the MCLK cycle %d ps\n",
That still needs some work, IMHO. I think you might need the word "which" before "doesn't". However, even with that, it's not clear what's wrong. Where does the bad value of "mclk_ps" come from?
Signature · 2 lines
Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale
PATCH 1/1 powerpc/mpc8xxx: reword max tCKmin message
Quoted 10 lines · On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 20:19 -0700, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/lc_common_dimm_params.c compute_cas_latency_ddr3(const dimm_params_t *dimm_params, · line 42
Quoted 3 lines · York Sun
arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/lc_common_dimm_params.c +1
-1- printf("The DIMM max tCKmin is %d ps," + printf("The combined minimum tCKmin is %d ps," "doesn't support the MCLK cycle %d ps\n",That still needs some work, IMHO. I think you might need the word "which" before "doesn't". However, even with that, it's not clear what's wrong. Where does the bad value of "
mclk_ps" come from?
It happens when the actually DDR clock is faster than the slowest DIMM can support.
York
PATCH 1/1 powerpc/mpc8xxx: reword max tCKmin message
Quoted 13 lines · York Sun
Quoted 10 lines · On Mon, 2011-05-02 at 20:19 -0700, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/lc_common_dimm_params.c compute_cas_latency_ddr3(const dimm_params_t *dimm_params, · line 42
Quoted 3 lines · York Sun
arch/powerpc/cpu/mpc8xxx/ddr/lc_common_dimm_params.c +1
-1- printf("The DIMM max tCKmin is %d ps," + printf("The combined minimum tCKmin is %d ps," "doesn't support the MCLK cycle %d ps\n",That still needs some work, IMHO. I think you might need the word "which" before "doesn't". However, even with that, it's not clear what's wrong. Where does the bad value of "
mclk_ps" come from?
Quoted 4 lines
It happens when the actually DDR clock is faster than the slowest DIMM can support.
York
Did you guys agree on wording? Is the patch ok or needs changing?
- k
PATCH 1/1 powerpc/mpc8xxx: reword max tCKmin message
Quoted 10 lines · Kumar Gala
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
That still needs some work, IMHO. I think you might need the word "which" before "doesn't". However, even with that, it's not clear what's wrong. Where does the bad value of "
mclk_ps" come from?It happens when the actually DDR clock is faster than the slowest DIMM can support.
York
Did you guys agree on wording? Is the patch ok or needs changing?
I haven't seen an updated patch from York. I'd like to see the addition of text like, "It happens when the actually DDR clock is faster than the slowest DIMM can support." People need to know what to fix, not just what's wrong.
Also, %d is for signed integers, not unsigned.
Signature · 2 lines
Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale
PATCH 1/1 powerpc/mpc8xxx: reword max tCKmin message
Quoted 9 lines · Timur Tabi
Quoted 8 lines · Kumar Gala
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 4 lines
That still needs some work, IMHO. I think you might need the word "which" before "doesn't". However, even with that, it's not clear what's wrong. Where does the bad value of "
mclk_ps" come from?It happens when the actually DDR clock is faster than the slowest DIMM can support.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
York
Did you guys agree on wording? Is the patch ok or needs changing?
I haven't seen an updated patch from York. I'd like to see the addition of text like, "It happens when the actually DDR clock is faster than the slowest DIMM can support." People need to know what to fix, not just what's wrong.
Also, %d is for signed integers, not unsigned.
I will update the patch according to Timur's suggestion.
York