[U-Boot] [v4 patch 6/6] SMDK6400: Fix SMDK6400 SDRAM init

[seedshope]

On 01/22/2011 03:11 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Le 21/01/2011 19:43, seedshope a écrit :
>
>> On 01/22/2011 02:29 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
>>> Le 21/01/2011 19:15, seedshope a écrit :
>>>> On 01/22/2011 02:05 AM, seedshope wrote:
>>>>> On 01/22/2011 01:52 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>>>>>> Hello.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> seedshope wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since SDRAM init function have already change, So the SDRAM
>>>>>>> initial function must be change.
>>>>>>        This description sounds somewhat tautological...
>>>>> If I describe  as following:
>>>>> Since SDRAM init function have already change, Modify SDRAM inital
>>>>> function to adapt to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about it?
>>> Still unclear, due to the fact you're using the same three terms
>>> ("init/initial, RAM, function") for two apparently different things.
>> Ya, Maybe, But I don't know to describe it.
>>
>> The patch is only to modify the dram_init() and dram_init_banksize(),
>> Could you help me to describe?
>>
>> Thank you very much！
>> seedshope
> The reason for the change to dram_init is not actually about DRAM. If
> you look up similar patches, you'll find out it is about not being able
> to access gd->bd because bd does not exist, and this is so since the ELF
> relocation was introduced. So some good descriptions could be "do not
> use gd->bd any more" or "fix dram_init for relocation support", for
> instance.
>
ok,
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: seedshope<bocui107 at gmail.com>
>>>>>>        Your real name is required in the signoff.
>>>>> I use the name for my pen name. It is not problem.
>>> I think Sergei means pen names should not be used. I won't personally
>>> pass judgment, but so far I've always seen contributors using their
>>> actual names.
>>>
>> ok
>>>> I feel this may be you e-mail issue. I open my patch, It is display as
>>>> following:
>>>>
>>>> +         gd->ram_size = get_ram_size((long *)CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE,
>>>> +                                    PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE);
>>> Your patch, pulled from patchwork and viewed in vi, has three tabs on
>>> that second line, which does not align properly. You should check your
>>> code editor settings re: tabs.
>> My patch is ok, I just two tabs in my e-mail, But I sent the mail,
>> It is change.
> Do you send the patch through git format-patch and git send-email?
Yes, I use the git format-patch and git send-email
> Many
> e-mail softwares have weird issues when posting git patches, which is
> why git has its own tools for sending patches via e-mail.
ok

Thanks
seedshope

>> Thanks
>> hongbo
> Amicalement,