From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tolunay Orkun Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:54:43 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] PATCH for drivers/cfi_flash.c In-Reply-To: <20050531200526.D31DDC1512@atlas.denx.de> References: <20050531200526.D31DDC1512@atlas.denx.de> Message-ID: <429CCF13.6020809@orkun.us> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Wolfgang Denk wrote: >>>2) force a one tick delay no matter what in flash_status_check() >>> >>> > >Actually it should read: round up always. > > >>Pro: Easy to do. Info structure contains correct values >>Con: Rounding up tout is done every time we are in flash_status_check. >> >> > >So what? Regarding the code size it does not matter if we round up >here or there; regarding speed it does not matter either since we're >going to enter some sort of delay loop anyway. > >This is the way to go. > > So it shall be ;) I'll submit a patch for this. Question 1: Should I redo my last patch or submit a patch on top of it assuming that it will go through? Question 2: Assuming I will re-work my original patch. I had also included a fix in my last patch for logic error in flash_full_status_check() but today Peter Pearse came forward saying that fix was part of his patch submitted in March. ( http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=11164812 ). However, I do not have access to the patch file mentioned in that messages to compare. Should I exclude this change from my patch?