mpc83xx:Fix MPC8349ITX SPD RAM initialization
Benedict
PATCH 2/2 mpc83xx:Fix MPC8349ITX SPD RAM initialization
---
Use newly defined CFG_DDR_SDRAM_CLK_CNTL for MPC8349ITX static ram initialization
board/mpc8349itx/mpc8349itx.c | 3 +-- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
(quoted diff) +0 -0
b/board/mpc8349itx/mpc8349itx.c
index 2b3ded1..178b1d3 100644
board/mpc8349itx/mpc8349itx.c +0 -0
@@ -80,8 +80,7 @@ int fixed_sdram(void) im->ddr.sdram_interval = (0x0410 << SDRAM_INTERVAL_REFINT_SHIFT) | (0x0100 <<
SDRAM_INTERVAL_BSTOPRE_SHIFT);
- im->ddr.sdram_clk_cntl =
- DDR_SDRAM_CLK_CNTL_SS_EN | DDR_SDRAM_CLK_CNTL_CLK_ADJUST_05;
+ im->ddr.sdram_clk_cntl = CFG_DDR_SDRAM_CLK_CNTL;
udelay(200);
--
1.4.4.4
PATCH 2/2 mpc83xx:Fix MPC8349ITX SPD RAM initialization
Quoted 1 line · Michael
Signed-off-by Timur Tabi <[email protected]>
Please don't do that. I didn't write this patch, and so technically I can't sign off on it. Instead, if I approve of the patch, I would send a follow-up email saying "Acked-by:
Timur Tabi".
Having said that, I think you should combine your original patch with this patch below into one new patch. Then, I will test this new patch, and if I like it, I'll ACK it.
Signature · 2 lines
Timur Tabi Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale
Benedict
PATCH 2/2 mpc83xx:Fix MPC8349ITX SPD RAMinitialization
Quoted 8 lines · u-boot-users-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net
Quoted 1 line · Michael
Signed-off-by Timur Tabi <[email protected]>Please don't do that. I didn't write this patch, and so technically I can't sign off on
it. Instead, if I approve of the patch, I would send a follow-up email saying "Acked-by:
Timur Tabi".
Sorry, for the mistake... I thought you _did_ write this patch in an email to the list about an hour ago. *confused*. I did the same exact thing on the other half of the patch (Bruce posted to the list, so I took that as being
a valid sign off). Since that is not the case, I will retract this patch until I can aquire a sign-off.
-Michael
PATCH 2/2 mpc83xx:Fix MPC8349ITX SPD RAMinitialization
Quoted 2 lines · Michael
Sorry, for the mistake... I thought you _did_ write this patch in an email to the list about an hour ago. *confused*.
Well, that wasn't a patch, it was a suggestion. There's a difference between telling someone how to write a patch, and actually writing it. The latter is necessary for a signed-off-by line.
Also, I saw your other re-send of the original patch. I think I may have not explained myself properly. Here's how a patch is supposed to look:
Required description of patch goes here. This text gets logged with the patch itself in the repo.
Signed-off-by lines here
---
Optional comment about the patch. This text does *not* get logged with the patch.
git-generated data (list of files changed, diff lines, etc) goes here
Signature · 2 lines
Timur Tabi Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale