From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-gw0-f42.google.com (mail-gw0-f42.google.com [74.125.83.42]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1BCAB7D49 for ; Mon, 3 May 2010 00:23:44 +1000 (EST) Received: by gwj17 with SMTP id 17so749809gwj.15 for ; Sun, 02 May 2010 07:23:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca In-Reply-To: <1272799482.4130.0@antares> References: <1272392908.6504.0@antares> <1272799482.4130.0@antares> From: Grant Likely Date: Sun, 2 May 2010 08:23:22 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: mpc512x uart: testers wanted To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Albrecht_Dre=DF?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Linux PPC Development , Anatolij Gustschin List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Albrecht Dre=DF w= rote: > Hi Grant: > > Am 27.04.10 20:28 schrieb(en) Albrecht Dre=DF: >>> >>> MPC5121e Hardware Design Guide provides correct info according to my >>> tests using /16 and /10 prescaler. I've send a new patch with the fixed >>> comments, 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 proble= m. >> >> Grant? =A0Is 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 bee= n > verified on both the 512x (Anatolij) and 5200 (me) processors. =A0Do you > accept Anatolij's "joint patch" he sent on Apr 26, or is that procedure t= oo > confusing? =A0And do we need further Acked-by's? Yes, I'll pick up Anatolij's patch. No further work needed by you. g.