anboe,
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, ye janboe wrote:
> >
> >> >From f10090bf307066f1317d7152c6f9a6f395007d4a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >> From: janboe
> >> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:50:57 +0800
> >> Subject: [PATCH] flush the function in sdram is not correct because
> >&
m: janboe
>> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:50:57 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] flush the function in sdram is not correct because
>> sram is changed.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: janboe
>
> The technical part of the patch makes sense, but the patch format needs
> to be chang
Hello janboe,
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009, ye janboe wrote:
> >From f10090bf307066f1317d7152c6f9a6f395007d4a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: janboe
> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:50:57 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] flush the function in sdram is not correct because
> sram is changed.
resend because little format issue.
>From fc5e771b808b5bf094846051a1c59c7e5e8ec149 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: janboe
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:50:57 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] flush the function in sdram is not correct because
sram is changed.
Signed-off-by: janboe
---
arch/arm/plat-o
>From f10090bf307066f1317d7152c6f9a6f395007d4a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: janboe
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:50:57 +0800
Subject: [PATCH] flush the function in sdram is not correct because
sram is changed.
Signed-off-by: janboe
---
arch/arm/plat-omap/sram.c |2 +-
1 files changed
