On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 11:46:31AM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 09:06 Fri 09 Dec , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 03:24:33PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > On 10:17 Thu 08 Dec , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > arch/arm/mach-imx/imx27.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > arch/arm/mach-imx/include/mach/imx27-regs.h | 1 + > > > > 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > do we really need this in barebox? > > > > Why not? It's basically just a handfull of register accesses which are > > normally hidden in lowlevel_init without anybody noticing it. The fact > > that I created defines for them just makes it slightly more visible. > can we have a small comment when they are needed at list What do you mean? The patch has this: > +/* > + * Initialize MAX on i.MX27. necessary to give the DMA engine > + * higher priority to the memory than the CPU. Needed for proper > + * audio support > + */ (I agree that this does not necessarily has to be done in barebox, but my plan is to send a patch for the kernel aswell. This increases the chance that it is done at least once somewhere) Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
