[U-Boot] [PATCH] xilinx_emaclite.c ping-pong macro names

[Michal Simek]

Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear alain.peteut at space.unibe.ch,
> 
> In message <20110415144908.16476jnz1wxcpps4 at 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


-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Maintainer of Linux kernel 2.6 Microblaze Linux - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/
Microblaze U-BOOT custodian