[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 2/2] mpc83xx:Fix MPC8349ITX SPD RAM initialization

[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 2/2] mpc83xx:Fix MPC8349ITX SPD RAM initialization

[Benedict, Michael]

Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>
---
Use newly defined CFG_DDR_SDRAM_CLK_CNTL for MPC8349ITX static ram
initialization

 board/mpc8349itx/mpc8349itx.c |    3 +--
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/board/mpc8349itx/mpc8349itx.c
b/board/mpc8349itx/mpc8349itx.c
index 2b3ded1..178b1d3 100644
--- a/board/mpc8349itx/mpc8349itx.c
+++ b/board/mpc8349itx/mpc8349itx.c
@@ -80,8 +80,7 @@ int fixed_sdram(void)
        im->ddr.sdram_interval =
            (0x0410 << SDRAM_INTERVAL_REFINT_SHIFT) | (0x0100 <<
 
SDRAM_INTERVAL_BSTOPRE_SHIFT);
-       im->ddr.sdram_clk_cntl =
-           DDR_SDRAM_CLK_CNTL_SS_EN | DDR_SDRAM_CLK_CNTL_CLK_ADJUST_05;
+       im->ddr.sdram_clk_cntl = CFG_DDR_SDRAM_CLK_CNTL;

        udelay(200);

--
1.4.4.4

[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 2/2] mpc83xx:Fix MPC8349ITX SPD RAM initialization

[Timur Tabi]

Benedict, Michael wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>

Please don't do that.  I didn't write this patch, and so technically I can't sign off on 
it.  Instead, if I approve of the patch, I would send a follow-up email saying "Acked-by: 
Timur Tabi".

Having said that, I think you should combine your original patch with this patch below 
into one new patch.  Then, I will test this new patch, and if I like it, I'll ACK it.

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale

[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 2/2] mpc83xx:Fix MPC8349ITX SPD RAMinitialization

[Benedict, Michael]

u-boot-users-bounces at lists.sourceforge.net wrote:
> Benedict, Michael wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>
> 
> Please don't do that.  I didn't write this patch, and so
> technically I can't sign off on
> it.  Instead, if I approve of the patch, I would send a
> follow-up email saying "Acked-by:
> Timur Tabi".

Sorry, for the mistake... I thought you _did_ write this patch in an
email to the list about an hour ago.  *confused*.  I did the same exact
thing on the other half of the patch (Bruce posted to the list, so I
took that as being 
a valid sign off).  Since that is not the case, I will retract this
patch until I can aquire a sign-off.
	-Michael

[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 2/2] mpc83xx:Fix MPC8349ITX SPD RAMinitialization

[Timur Tabi]

Benedict, Michael wrote:

> Sorry, for the mistake... I thought you _did_ write this patch in an
> email to the list about an hour ago.  *confused*. 

Well, that wasn't a patch, it was a suggestion.  There's a difference between telling 
someone how to write a patch, and actually writing it.  The latter is necessary for a 
signed-off-by line.

Also, I saw your other re-send of the original patch.  I think I may have not explained 
myself properly.  Here's how a patch is supposed to look:



Required description of patch goes here.  This text gets logged with the patch itself in 
the repo.

Signed-off-by lines here

---

Optional comment about the patch.  This text does *not* get logged with the patch.

git-generated data (list of files changed, diff lines, etc) goes here

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale