From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ivo.g.dimitrov.75@gmail.com (Ivaylo Dimitrov) Date: Sat, 21 May 2016 15:00:38 +0300 Subject: [PATCH 0108/1529] Fix typo In-Reply-To: <20160521115032.4966-1-andrea.gelmini@gelma.net> References: <20160521115032.4966-1-andrea.gelmini@gelma.net> Message-ID: <57404DE6.7040506@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 21.05.2016 14:50, Andrea Gelmini wrote: > Signed-off-by: Andrea Gelmini > --- > arch/arm/mach-omap2/sdrc.h | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/sdrc.h b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/sdrc.h > index 645a2a4..f115006 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/sdrc.h > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/sdrc.h > @@ -175,8 +175,8 @@ u32 omap2xxx_sdrc_reprogram(u32 level, u32 force); > * don't adjust it down as your clock period increases the refresh interval > * will not be met. Setting all parameters for complete worst case may work, > * but may cut memory performance by 2x. Due to errata the DLLs need to be > - * unlocked and their value needs run time calibration. A dynamic call is > - * need for that as no single right value exists acorss production samples. > + * unlocked and their value needs run time calibration. A dynamic call is > + * need for that as no single right value exists across production samples. needed? > * > * Only the FULL speed values are given. Current code is such that rate > * changes must be made at DPLLoutx2. The actual value adjustment for low >