thoughts and questions on 8xx patches
wd at denx.de
Tue Sep 21 21:26:55 EST 2004
In message <Pine.LNX.4.60.0409210700390.9187 at dell.enoriver.com> you wrote:
> > Why? As far as I understand the I2C/SPI patch has been obsolteted by
> > the I2C/SPI/SMC1 patch. So only the latter is needed.
> uh huh. even though, as i've already pointed out, the code in
> micropatch.c in *both* your source tree and the linuxppc-2.5 tree is
> broken in that, if you applied the SMC patch, it would have (AFAICT)
> caused a conflict because of an erroneously low value of RPBASE.
> it's a bit presumptuous to declare that a broken patch has obsoleted
> one that actually works, don't you think?
You are misinterpreting things. The patch is one thing - it is more
or less a black box suppied with usage instructions by the chip
manufacturer. micropatch.c is some code in the Linux kernel that
attempts to implement the instructions that come with the microcode
patch. The fact that there may be errors in micropatch.c has nothing
to do with the fact that one version of the microcode patch may have
obsoleted other versions.
These things have nothing to do with each other.
As I alrady wrote you privately I think you are right that
micropatch.c is broken for the recent versions of the microcode
patches. This does NOT mean that such recent versions of the
microcode patches don;t obsolete older versions of the same patches.
Please don;t mix up unrelated things.
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux
Phone: (+49)-8142-4596-87 Fax: (+49)-8142-4596-88 Email: wd at denx.de
A rolling stone gathers momentum.
More information about the Linuxppc-dev