[U-Boot-Users] Re: Patches for U-Boot
Wolfgang Denk
wd at denx.de
Sat Sep 13 20:58:11 CEST 2003
In message <3F62CC58.8060604 at elsoft.ch> you wrote:
>
> The attached patch fixes the following issues:
>
> Makefile: add $(CC) to "-print-libgcc-filename" so compiler gets
> correct libgcc file
Description and patch disagree. In the patch, you add not "$(CC)"
[which is already there - obviously], but "$(CFLAGS)".
What makes you think that options like "-Wall" or "-Wstrict-prototypes"
would change the behaviour of "-print-libgcc-filename" ??
Rejected.
> README: mention VCMA9 board
>
> board/mpl/vcma9/* various changes to VCMA9 board specific files
Added.
> common/cmd_nand.c prepare S3C2410 support (more to follow)
I think it's a bad idea to ``#include "../board/mpl/vcma9/vcma9.h"''
in a common source file. Either vcma9.h contains definitions valid
and necessary for all S3C24xx boards, then those should be moved
into to common header file; or they include board specific stuff,
and then they should not be needed in common/cmd_nand.c
Rejected.
> drivers/s3c24x0_i2c.c adjust delay value and some cleanup
Please explain why you think that this modification:
- i = I2C_TIMEOUT * 1000;
+ i = I2C_TIMEOUT * 10000;
status = i2c->IICCON;
while ((i > 0) && !(status & I2CCON_IRPND)) {
- udelay(1000);
+ udelay(100);
status = i2c->IICCON;
i--;
}
changes or improves the behaviour. I see no advantages.
Rejected for now. I see no advantages.
Rejected for now.
> rtc/s3c24x0_rtc.c remove unnecessary enable/disable stuff and cleanup
Do you think the enable/disable stuff hurts? Left as is, rest
applied.
Changes will show up on CVS "soon".
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd at denx.de
"To IBM, 'open' means there is a modicum of interoperability among
some of their equipment." - Harv Masterson
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list