Hi Bertrand,
When you submit a new version of the same patch, you
should specify in the subject the version number and
in the body changes summary, just as example below:
for subject:
[PATCH v2] Improve Power Management in SMC911X driver
and for body see where it is placed:
On 11/14/11 16:02, Bertrand Cachet wrote:
>>From datasheet, when READY bit is set inside PM_CTRL register, it means that
> device is already in *normal* (D0) mode => it doesn't need to be wake-up.
>
> With this patch, we only wake-up (writing on TEST_BYTE register) if PM_MODE
> bits of PM_CTRL register is in D1/D2 mode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bertrand Cachet <bertrand.cac...@heig-vd.ch>
> ---
v2 - fix multi-line comment style.
> drivers/net/smc911x.h | 8 ++++++--
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/smc911x.h b/drivers/net/smc911x.h
> index 8ce08a9..61f7669 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/smc911x.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/smc911x.h
> @@ -471,8 +471,12 @@ static void smc911x_reset(struct eth_device *dev)
> {
> int timeout;
>
> - /* Take out of PM setting first */
> - if (smc911x_reg_read(dev, PMT_CTRL) & PMT_CTRL_READY) {
> + /* Take out of PM setting first */
> + /*
> + * If PMT_CTRL_READY bit is set to 1b => power management is
> + * already ready
> + */
This still does not look good, because there is one line comment
and just after it a multi-line comment.
Isn't it makes sense to unify them into one multi-line comment?
> + if ((smc911x_reg_read(dev, PMT_CTRL) & PMT_CTRL_READY) == 0) {
> /* Write to the bytetest will take out of powerdown */
> smc911x_reg_write(dev, BYTE_TEST, 0x0);
>
--
Regards,
Igor.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
