From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <scottwood@freescale.com>
Received: from az33egw01.freescale.net (az33egw01.freescale.net
	[192.88.158.102])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client CN "az33egw01.freescale.net",
	Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK))
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC15DDE29
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:08:06 +1000 (EST)
Message-ID: <46E5B203.4060009@freescale.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:07:15 -0500
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] cpm2: Fix off-by-one error in setbrg().
References: <20070905192910.GA32462@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net>
	<EDF5D1CF-E423-449F-A435-9BD044206F4F@kernel.crashing.org>
	<46E59E9E.30707@freescale.com>
	<5275D8E2-1DF2-4E2E-B9AC-7E085E69BF72@kernel.crashing.org>
In-Reply-To: <5275D8E2-1DF2-4E2E-B9AC-7E085E69BF72@kernel.crashing.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

Kumar Gala wrote:
> 
> On Sep 10, 2007, at 2:44 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> 
>> Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> On Sep 5, 2007, at 2:29 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>> The hardware adds one to the BRG value to get the divider, so it must
>>>> be subtracted by software.  Without this patch, characters will 
>>>> occasionally
>>>> be corrupted.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/powerpc/sysdev/cpm2_common.c |    2 +-
>>>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>> What was this patch against?
>>> I ended up applying it by hand for 2.6.23 since its fixing a bug..  
>>> But, I'm wondering if there was a base set of changes this patchset 
>>> was against?
>>
>> It was against head-of-your-tree as of the time I sent it.
> 
> Odd, my top of tree doesn't use out_be32() for cpm_setbrg().

That was done by patch 01/10. :-)

-Scott