From: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com>
Cc: Linuxppc-dev mailing list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: thoughts and questions on 8xx patches
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 13:26:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040921112700.D1DF8C108D@atlas.denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:06:53 EDT." <Pine.LNX.4.60.0409210700390.9187@dell.enoriver.com>
In message <Pine.LNX.4.60.0409210700390.9187@dell.enoriver.com> you wrote:
>
> > Why? As far as I understand the I2C/SPI patch has been obsolteted by
> > the I2C/SPI/SMC1 patch. So only the latter is needed.
>
> uh huh. even though, as i've already pointed out, the code in
> micropatch.c in *both* your source tree and the linuxppc-2.5 tree is
> broken in that, if you applied the SMC patch, it would have (AFAICT)
> caused a conflict because of an erroneously low value of RPBASE.
>
> it's a bit presumptuous to declare that a broken patch has obsoleted
> one that actually works, don't you think?
You are misinterpreting things. The patch is one thing - it is more
or less a black box suppied with usage instructions by the chip
manufacturer. micropatch.c is some code in the Linux kernel that
attempts to implement the instructions that come with the microcode
patch. The fact that there may be errors in micropatch.c has nothing
to do with the fact that one version of the microcode patch may have
obsoleted other versions.
These things have nothing to do with each other.
As I alrady wrote you privately I think you are right that
micropatch.c is broken for the recent versions of the microcode
patches. This does NOT mean that such recent versions of the
microcode patches don;t obsolete older versions of the same patches.
Please don;t mix up unrelated things.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd@denx.de
A rolling stone gathers momentum.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-09-21 11:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-09-20 20:05 thoughts and questions on 8xx patches Robert P. J. Day
2004-09-20 22:10 ` Dan Malek
2004-09-21 0:15 ` Robert P. J. Day
2004-09-21 6:37 ` Dan Malek
2004-09-21 10:13 ` Robert P. J. Day
2004-09-21 10:40 ` Wolfgang Denk
2004-09-21 10:59 ` Robert P. J. Day
2004-09-21 11:49 ` Wolfgang Denk
2004-09-21 12:23 ` Robert P. J. Day
2004-09-21 12:52 ` Wolfgang Denk
2004-09-21 12:56 ` Robert P. J. Day
2004-09-21 17:21 ` Dan Malek
2004-09-21 11:06 ` Robert P. J. Day
2004-09-21 11:26 ` Wolfgang Denk [this message]
2004-09-21 12:07 ` Robert P. J. Day
2004-09-21 12:45 ` Wolfgang Denk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040921112700.D1DF8C108D@atlas.denx.de \
--to=wd@denx.de \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=rpjday@mindspring.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).