> > On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 10:08:08AM -0700, Ben Warren wrote: > > Paulraj, Sandeep wrote: > >>>> Most probably we need a Signed-off-by then ;) > >>>> > >>> Take your pick. Either a: > >>> > >>> Acked-by: Olof Johansson <o...@lixom.net> > >>> > >>> Or apply the below revised patch instead. > >>> > >>> > >>> SMC911X: Add chip auto detection > >>> > >>> Refactor the smc911x driver to allow for detecting when the chip is > >>> missing. > >>> I.e. the detect_chip() function is called earlier and will abort > >>> gracefully > >>> when the Chip ID read returns all 1's. > >>> > >>> Based on testing from Steve Sakoman, the test has been moved up in the > >>> function to not hang on systems without ethernet. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Olof Johansson <o...@lixom.net> > >>> Acked-by: Dirk Behme <dirk.be...@googlemail.com> > >>> Acked-by: Ben Warren <biggerbadder...@gmail.com> > >>> > >> > >> Are we sure we have Ben's ACK. > >> > >> > > Yeah. I can't find it in my 'Sent' folder, but seem to remember ACK'ing > > this already. If not, consider this an ACK. > > I just brought it forward from the previous patch, and I wasn't the one > who added it back then. My bad, I should have dropped all acks based on > the new contents. > > > -Olof I'm a little confused :-) I realized when I was trying to apply this patch that this is already part of the u-boot-ti and u-boot-arm trees.
I am referring to http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-ti.git;a=commitdiff;h=4eb3af078267e103fb957cb831497cf7670fb3f4 The patch in this e-mail chain was supposed to fix a bug discovered after Tom updated his tree. Since this patch was already part of u-boot-ti and u-boot-arm trees, I don't see how this fixes a bug. Can the u-boot-ti tree be checked to see if it works with / without TOBI? I don't have a single OMAP3 EVM(I work only on DaVinci's) and hence can't test myself. Sandeep _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
