From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp5.netcologne.de (smtp5.netcologne.de [194.8.194.25]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE82DB6EEB for ; Sun, 2 May 2010 21:24:46 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 13:24:34 +0200 From: Albrecht =?iso-8859-1?b?RHJl3w==?= Subject: Re: mpc512x uart: testers wanted To: "Likely, Grant" In-Reply-To: <1272392908.6504.0@antares> (from albrecht.dress@arcor.de on Tue Apr 27 20:28:20 2010) Message-Id: <1272799482.4130.0@antares> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="=-MfLanuQDXAu+ID3dZeM7" Cc: Linux PPC Development , Anatolij Gustschin List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-MfLanuQDXAu+ID3dZeM7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp=Yes; Format=Flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Grant: Am 27.04.10 20:28 schrieb(en) Albrecht Dre=DF: >> MPC5121e Hardware Design Guide provides correct info according to my tes= ts using /16 and /10 prescaler. I've send a new patch with the fixed commen= ts, unfortunately forgot to mark it as v4, but it is threaded to your v.3a = patch and contains a small changelog, so I hope it is not a problem. >=20 > Grant? Is this fine for you, or should I "officially" re-send it? *ping* IMHO, this issue can be closed now, as the correct uart operation has been = verified on both the 512x (Anatolij) and 5200 (me) processors. Do you acce= pt Anatolij's "joint patch" he sent on Apr 26, or is that procedure too con= fusing? And do we need further Acked-by's? Cheers, Albrecht. --=-MfLanuQDXAu+ID3dZeM7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBL3WD6n/9unNAn/9ERApAhAJoCqM5awNs1DBFZ6q5zSX1wh8/pQwCdHZHW LTV96i+uu3GCuyHs5+MWNp0= =tB7a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-MfLanuQDXAu+ID3dZeM7--