[U-Boot] [v4 patch 6/6] SMDK6400: Fix SMDK6400 SDRAM init

[seedshope <bocui107@gmail.com>]

On 01/22/2011 02:29 AM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> Le 21/01/2011 19:15, seedshope a ?crit :
>> On 01/22/2011 02:05 AM, seedshope wrote:
>>> On 01/22/2011 01:52 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>>>> Hello.
>>>>
>>>> seedshope wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since SDRAM init function have already change, So the SDRAM
>>>>> initial function must be change.
>>>>      This description sounds somewhat tautological...
>>> If I describe  as following:
>>> Since SDRAM init function have already change, Modify SDRAM inital
>>> function to adapt to it.
>>>
>>> How about it?
> Still unclear, due to the fact you're using the same three terms
> ("init/initial, RAM, function") for two apparently different things.
Ya, Maybe, But I don't know to describe it.

The patch is only to modify the dram_init() and dram_init_banksize(),
Could you help me to describe?

Thank you very much?
seedshope
>>>>> Signed-off-by: seedshope<bocui107@gmail.com>
>>>>      Your real name is required in the signoff.
>>> I use the name for my pen name. It is not problem.
> I think Sergei means pen names should not be used. I won't personally
> pass judgment, but so far I've always seen contributors using their
> actual names.
>
ok
>> I feel this may be you e-mail issue. I open my patch, It is display as
>> following:
>>
>> +         gd->ram_size = get_ram_size((long *)CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE,
>> +                                    PHYS_SDRAM_1_SIZE);
> Your patch, pulled from patchwork and viewed in vi, has three tabs on
> that second line, which does not align properly. You should check your
> code editor settings re: tabs.
My patch is ok, I just two tabs in my e-mail, But I sent the mail,
It is change.

Thanks
hongbo
> Amicalement,