[U-Boot-Users] PATCH for drivers/cfi_flash.c
Tolunay Orkun
listmember at orkun.us
Tue May 31 22:54:43 CEST 2005
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>>2) force a one tick delay no matter what in flash_status_check()
>>>
>>>
>
>Actually it should read: round up always.
>
>
>>Pro: Easy to do. Info structure contains correct values
>>Con: Rounding up tout is done every time we are in flash_status_check.
>>
>>
>
>So what? Regarding the code size it does not matter if we round up
>here or there; regarding speed it does not matter either since we're
>going to enter some sort of delay loop anyway.
>
>This is the way to go.
>
>
So it shall be ;) I'll submit a patch for this.
Question 1: Should I redo my last patch or submit a patch on top of it
assuming that it will go through?
Question 2: Assuming I will re-work my original patch. I had also
included a fix in my last patch for logic error in
flash_full_status_check() but today Peter Pearse came forward saying
that fix was part of his patch submitted in March. (
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=11164812 ).
However, I do not have access to the patch file mentioned in that
messages to compare. Should I exclude this change from my patch?
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list