On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 10:43:38AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On 6 April 2017 at 10:27, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 10:24:09AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > >> Hi Tom, > >> > >> On 6 April 2017 at 10:23, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 10:27:16AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > >> > > >> >> There is no need to have this call in the generic init sequence and no > >> >> other architecture has needed it in the time it has been there. Move it > >> >> into sandbox's private code. > >> >> > >> >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > >> >> Reviewed-by: Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de> > >> >> Reviewed-by: Stefan Roese <s...@denx.de> > >> > > >> > Applied to u-boot/master, thanks! > >> > >> I was just about to resend that series to fix the cover letter...but > >> perhaps it doesn't matter. > >> > >> I'm resending the second series now. > > > > Yeah, you'll want to re-sync stuff, sorry. I did have a few fixups to > > do as I applied these, but mainly due to removing > > sparc/blackfin/openrisc first. > > Yes I was assuming the removal would go in before my series, so that's > good. I think you've applied everything except this patch: > > board_f: Rename initdram() to dram_init() > > Is that right? If so, I'll respin and resend. I hope it wasn't too much work!
Correct, and it wasn't hard, no. But with initdram() what I was trying to stress yesterday was that we have some use cases where both functions are used and in different ways. So some of the platforms will need a real think on how to get the same functionality still. I'm not sure if I was clear enough yesterday. Thanks again! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
