From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paulraj, Sandeep Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 11:42:41 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v3] TI: OMAP3: Overo Tobi ethernet support In-Reply-To: <20091008192149.GA18486@lixom.net> References: <20090911204750.GA22246@lixom.net> <20090923145556.GA28659@lixom.net> <20090926211434.GB21538@lixom.net> <5e088bd90910050656l265d6fav32fe3bd86fd06250@mail.gmail.com> <20091008065902.GA12935@lixom.net> <0554BEF07D437848AF01B9C9B5F0BC5D93164B86@dlee01.ent.ti.com> <4ACE1C78.9090901@gmail.com> <20091008192149.GA18486@lixom.net> Message-ID: <0554BEF07D437848AF01B9C9B5F0BC5D93268748@dlee01.ent.ti.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de > > 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 > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> Acked-by: Dirk Behme > >>> Acked-by: Ben Warren > >>> > >> > >> 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