David Miller wrote on 27/03/2009 08:42:37:
>
>
> These patches don't apply to the current tree, could you please
> respin your final version against at the very least Linus's tree?
That is strange, had a look at linus tree and I don't see any
changes in his tree that touches the same area/funct
These patches don't apply to the current tree, could you please
respin your final version against at the very least Linus's tree?
Thanks.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Anton Vorontsov wrote on 26/03/2009 19:05:43:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 05:43:25PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> [...]
> > > bd == ugeth->confBd[txQ]
> > > and
> > > !in_be32((u32 __iomem *)(bd+4))
> > >
> > > Are not equivalent wrt. speed. MMIO accessors should be rather
> > > slow comparing
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 05:43:25PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
[...]
> > bd == ugeth->confBd[txQ]
> > and
> > !in_be32((u32 __iomem *)(bd+4))
> >
> > Are not equivalent wrt. speed. MMIO accessors should be rather
> > slow comparing to normal memory.
>
> Yes, I know. I did it this way because I
Anton Vorontsov wrote on 26/03/2009 14:39:18:
>
> Hi Joakim,
Hi Anton
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:54:37PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > The line:
> > if ((bd == ugeth->txBd[txQ]) && (netif_queue_stopped(dev) == 0))
> >break;
> > in ucc_geth_tx() didn not make sense to me. Rewo
Hi Joakim,
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 01:54:37PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> The line:
> if ((bd == ugeth->txBd[txQ]) && (netif_queue_stopped(dev) == 0))
>break;
> in ucc_geth_tx() didn not make sense to me. Rework & cleanup
> this logic to something understandable.
>
> Signed-off-by:
The line:
if ((bd == ugeth->txBd[txQ]) && (netif_queue_stopped(dev) == 0))
break;
in ucc_geth_tx() didn not make sense to me. Rework & cleanup
this logic to something understandable.
Signed-off-by: Joakim Tjernlund
---
drivers/net/ucc_geth.c | 40 ---
