Kumar, Wolfgang
I think this is my mistake, I did not take care of checkpatch.
Please let me know , I can submit it again.
Regards
Poonam
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kumar Gala [mailto:ga...@kernel.crashing.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:18 PM
> To: Wolfgang Denk
> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; Aggrwal Poonam-B10812
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 7/7][v2] fsl_ifc: Add the workaround for
> erratum IFC A-003399(enabled on P1010)
>
>
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 1:35 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
> > Dear Kumar Gala,
> >
> > In message <1312555480-13401-8-git-send-email-
> ga...@kernel.crashing.org> you wrote:
> >> From: Poonam Aggrwal <poonam.aggr...@freescale.com>
> >>
> >> Issue: Address masking doesn't work properly.
> >> When sum of the base address, defined by BA, and memory bank size,
> >> defined by AM, exceeds 4GB (0xffff_ffff) then AMASKn[AM] doesn't mask
> >> CSPRn[BA] bits.
> >>
> >> Impact:
> >> This will impact booting when we are reprogramming CSPR0(BA) and
> >> AMASK0(AMASK) while executing from NOR Flash.
> >>
> >> Workaround:
> >> Re-programming of CSPR(BA) and AMASK is done while not executing from
> >> NOR Flash. The code which programs the BA and AMASK is executed from
> L2-SRAM.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Poonam Aggrwal <poonam.aggr...@freescale.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <ga...@kernel.crashing.org>
> >
> > This commit introdces new build warnings for the following boards:
> >
> > P1010RDB_36BIT_NOR P1010RDB_NOR
> > P1010RDB_36BIT_NOR_SECBOOT P1010RDB_NOR_SECBOOT
> >
> > For example:
> >
> > Configuring for P1010RDB_NOR - Board: P1010RDB, Options: P1010RDB
> > cpu_init_early.c: In function 'cpu_init_early_f':
> > cpu_init_early.c:74: warning: 'l2srbar' may be used uninitialized in
> > this function
> >
> >
> > Please fix!
> >
> >
> > Kumar, Poonam - I'm really p*ssed off. Both of you have more than
> > enough of experience to know that you should not submit untested
> > patches. especially here, where I already had to reject this patch
> > because it did not even pass checkpatch:
> >
> > I wrote in message <20110804212403.3d53221c...@gemini.denx.de>:
> >
> > | Dear Kumar Gala,
> > |
> > | In message
> > | <08144324-be32-4a54-bc2d-b920f18f3...@kernel.crashing.org>
> > | you wrote:
> > | >
> > | > > Kumar, could you __please__ get used to running your patches
> > | > > throuch checkpatch __before__ submitting? Thanks.
> > | >
> > | > I try to, but not all of them are by me ;)
> > |
> > | I know. But you submitted them, so you are responsible.
> >
> >
> > This level of neglect is really disappointing.
> >
> >
> > Wolfgang Denk
>
> If you look at the code I have NO IDEA how to fix this for older GCC.
> Gripping at me about this isn't fair. I'm sure if I hack something to
> make gcc-4.2 happy I'm going to piss off gcc-4.6. We can't win.
>
> At some point we have to move off gcc-4.2 as the baseline compiler
> w/regards to warning and code generation.
>
> - k
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
