Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] x86: fix memalign() parameter order

2016-02-17 Thread Bin Meng
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Bin Meng wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >> On 12 February 2016 at 14:27, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> From: Stephen Warren >>> >>> Purely by code

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] x86: fix memalign() parameter order

2016-02-17 Thread Bin Meng
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > On 12 February 2016 at 14:27, Stephen Warren wrote: >> From: Stephen Warren >> >> Purely by code inspection, it looks like the parameter order to memalign() >> is swapped; its

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] x86: fix memalign() parameter order

2016-02-13 Thread Bin Meng
Hi Stephen, On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 5:27 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: > From: Stephen Warren > > Purely by code inspection, it looks like the parameter order to memalign() > is swapped; its parameters are (align, size). 4096 is a likely desired >

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] x86: fix memalign() parameter order

2016-02-13 Thread Simon Glass
On 12 February 2016 at 14:27, Stephen Warren wrote: > From: Stephen Warren > > Purely by code inspection, it looks like the parameter order to memalign() > is swapped; its parameters are (align, size). 4096 is a likely desired > alignment, and a

[U-Boot] [PATCH] x86: fix memalign() parameter order

2016-02-12 Thread Stephen Warren
From: Stephen Warren Purely by code inspection, it looks like the parameter order to memalign() is swapped; its parameters are (align, size). 4096 is a likely desired alignment, and a variable named size sounds like a size:-) Fixes: 45b5a37836d5 ("x86: Add multi-processor