From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dirk Behme Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 19:58:05 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3] TI: OMAP3: Overo Tobi ethernet support In-Reply-To: <0554BEF07D437848AF01B9C9B5F0BC5D93268748@dlee01.ent.ti.com> References: <20090911204750.GA22246@lixom.net> <20090923145556.GA28659@lixom.net> <20090926211434.GB21538@lixom.net> <5e088bd90910050656l265d6fav32fe3bd86fd06250@mail.gmail.com> <20091008065902.GA12935@lixom.net> <0554BEF07D437848AF01B9C9B5F0BC5D93164B86@dlee01.ent.ti.com> <4ACE1C78.9090901@gmail.com> <20091008192149.GA18486@lixom.net> <0554BEF07D437848AF01B9C9B5F0BC5D93268748@dlee01.ent.ti.com> Message-ID: <4AD0CB2D.2010003@googlemail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Paulraj, Sandeep wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 10:08:08AM -0700, Ben Warren wrote: >>> Paulraj, Sandeep wrote: >>>>>> Most probably we need a Signed-off-by then ;) >>>>>> >>>>> Take your pick. Either a: >>>>> >>>>> Acked-by: Olof Johansson >>>>> >>>>> Or apply the below revised patch instead. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> SMC911X: Add chip auto detection >>>>> >>>>> Refactor the smc911x driver to allow for detecting when the chip is >>>>> missing. >>>>> I.e. the detect_chip() function is called earlier and will abort >>>>> gracefully >>>>> when the Chip ID read returns all 1's. >>>>> >>>>> Based on testing from Steve Sakoman, the test has been moved up in the >>>>> function to not hang on systems without ethernet. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson >>>>> Acked-by: Dirk Behme >>>>> Acked-by: Ben Warren >>>>> >>>> Are we sure we have Ben's ACK. >>>> >>>> >>> Yeah. I can't find it in my 'Sent' folder, but seem to remember ACK'ing >>> this already. If not, consider this an ACK. >> I just brought it forward from the previous patch, and I wasn't the one >> who added it back then. My bad, I should have dropped all acks based on >> the new contents. >> >> >> -Olof > I'm a little confused :-) > I realized when I was trying to apply this patch that this is already part of the u-boot-ti and u-boot-arm trees. > > I am referring to > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-ti.git;a=commitdiff;h=4eb3af078267e103fb957cb831497cf7670fb3f4 > > The patch in this e-mail chain was supposed to fix a bug discovered after Tom updated his tree. > > Since this patch was already part of u-boot-ti and u-boot-arm trees, I don't see how this fixes a bug. It's easy ;) The applied patch has a bug that the chip detection is done too late. It has to be done some lines earlier: http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-October/062150.html (which is against the patch already applied). So there are two options to deal with this: a) Apply http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-October/062150.html on top of the patch already in u-boot-ti (and u-boot-arm) or b) Revert http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-ti.git;a=commitdiff;h=4eb3af078267e103fb957cb831497cf7670fb3f4 and apply http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2009-October/062153.html instead which has the "make the chip detection earlier" fix from (a) above incorporated. Best regards Dirk