On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:17:05PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> The check for is_imx6q was introduced initially in
> 
>       f1f6d76370b3 ("ARM: i.MX6: correct work flow of PFDs from 
> uboot-sources")
> 
> to differentiate between i.MX6DL+i.MX6SL and i.MX6Q. The i.MX6D must be
> handled like the latter, so drop the check. i.MX6DL+i.MX6SL can be
> ignored here since since
> 
>       a66596282413 ("imx6: lowlevel_init: Fix workaround for new i.MX6s 
> chips")
> 
> the PFD handling is only done for i.MX6DQ.
> 
> Update the comment to be not only logically correct but also helpful.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koe...@pengutronix.de>

Applied, thanks

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@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox

Reply via email to