From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 30 May 2014 11:05:09 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:60198 "EHLO linux-mips.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S6822106AbaE3JFHgNnDH (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 May 2014 11:05:07 +0200 Received: from scotty.linux-mips.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by scotty.linux-mips.net (8.14.7/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s4U955Yf016913; Fri, 30 May 2014 11:05:05 +0200 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by scotty.linux-mips.net (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id s4U954XN016912; Fri, 30 May 2014 11:05:04 +0200 Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 11:05:04 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle To: =?utf-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= Cc: "linux-mips@linux-mips.org" , Hauke Mehrtens Subject: Re: [PATCH][next: 3.16] MIPS: BCM47XX: Slightly clean memory detection Message-ID: <20140530090504.GJ5157@linux-mips.org> References: <1397904586-9773-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 40380 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:45:41AM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 19 April 2014 12:49, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > > Patch was tested on devices with 64 MiB and 256 MiB of RAM. > > It documents every part nicely and drops this hacky part of code: > > max = off | ((128 << 20) - 1); > > I can't see this patch in any git tree. Am I missing some, or was this > patch forgotten? Nope - if it's in patchwork it's not forgotten. Just slightly burried. Really, patchwork is the ledger. If a patch is there, don't resend or I will hate you ;-) If it's not there but should be, enquire. If it's marked "Accepted" but doesn't show up anywhere - enquire. Ralf