[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] arm: Adds board_postclk_init to the init_sequence.

[Albert ARIBAUD]

Hi Andreas,

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:35:51 +0200, Andreas Bießmann
<andreas.devel at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Hi Albert,
> 
> On 04.09.12 21:34, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> > Hi Andreas,
> > 
> > On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:17:58 +0200, Andreas Bießmann
> > <andreas.devel at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Dear Albert Aribaud,
> >>
> >> On 16.08.12 20:22, Markus Hubig wrote:
> >>> The board_postclk_init() function can be used to perform
> >>> operations that requires a working timer early within the U-Boot
> >>> init_sequence.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Markus Hubig <mhubig at imko.de>
> >>> Cc: Albert ARIBAUD <albert.u.boot at aribaud.net>
> >>> ---
> >>>  arch/arm/lib/board.c |    3 +++
> >>>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/board.c b/arch/arm/lib/board.c
> >>> index f1951e8..109a1ac 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/lib/board.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/lib/board.c
> >>> @@ -241,6 +241,9 @@ init_fnc_t *init_sequence[] = {
> >>>  	fdtdec_check_fdt,
> >>>  #endif
> >>>  	timer_init,		/* initialize timer */
> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BOARD_POSTCLK_INIT
> >>> +	board_postclk_init,
> >>> +#endif
> >>>  #ifdef CONFIG_FSL_ESDHC
> >>>  	get_clocks,
> >>>  #endif
> >>>
> >>
> >> how do you think about this suggestion? Will you accept it? Should
> >> I apply both patches to u-boot-atmel?
> > 
> > From what I see, this converges with what's been in PPC for a long
> > time... I'm ok with the series going into atmel.
> 
> So I add a formal Acked-by from you?

That or just go ahead and apply them to atmel; as the custodian, you
don't need my Acked-By.
 
> Best regards
> 
> Andreas Bießmann

Amicalement,
-- 
Albert.