On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Andy Fleming <aflem...@freescale.com> wrote: > > On Aug 10, 2011, at 2:12 AM, Joe Hershberger wrote: > >> Previously only the last N were included based on the current one in use. >> >> Signed-off-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershber...@ni.com> >> Cc: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershber...@gmail.com> >> Cc: Mingkai Hu <mingkai...@freescale.com> >> Cc: Andy Fleming <aflem...@freescale.com> >> Cc: Kumar Gala <ga...@kernel.crashing.org> >> Cc: Detlev Zundel <d...@denx.de> > > > I'm curious if you were seeing a problem that this fixes?
I was searching for a performance problem on the MPC8313, and discovered this, which seemed wrong. It was not, however, the source of my problem. >> --- >> drivers/net/tsec.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/tsec.c b/drivers/net/tsec.c >> index 78ffc95..1805ca0 100644 >> --- a/drivers/net/tsec.c >> +++ b/drivers/net/tsec.c >> @@ -250,8 +250,8 @@ static void startup_tsec(struct eth_device *dev) >> txIdx = 0; >> >> /* Point to the buffer descriptors */ >> - out_be32(®s->tbase, (unsigned int)(&rtx.txbd[txIdx])); >> - out_be32(®s->rbase, (unsigned int)(&rtx.rxbd[rxIdx])); >> + out_be32(®s->tbase, (unsigned int)(&rtx.txbd[0])); >> + out_be32(®s->rbase, (unsigned int)(&rtx.rxbd[0])); > > However, while I don't believe this fixes a technical problem, I believe this > makes the code more straightforward. I agree. It is more straightforward to use 0 explicitly. > So if this is a fix to a problem, we need more information to understand what > you're really fixing. If this is just fixing something that looked wrong...: > > Acked-by: Andy Fleming <aflem...@freescale.com> It fixes something that was wrong before you committed 063c12633d5ad74d52152d9c358e715475e17629, but at this point, it's just cosmetic. Best regards, -Joe _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
