[PATCH] spd_rom FIX H8QME-2+

[Knut Kujat]

Hello,

this patch fixes the issue where the board wasn't able to start after
getting unplugged. I also added some GPIOs so now the power on led is
working.

Signed-off-by: Knut Kujat

---

[Myles Watson]

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Knut Kujat  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this patch fixes the issue where the board wasn't able to start after
> getting unplugged. I also added some GPIOs so now the power on led is
> working.

The spacing doesn't look like it follows these guidelines:
http://www.coreboot.org/Development_Guidelines#Coding_Style

static inline void activate_spd_rom(const struct mem_controller *ctrl)
 {
-    /* nothing to do */
+#define SMBUS_SWITCH1 0x70
+#define SMBUS_SWITCH2 0x72
+//     unsigned device=(ctrl->spd_addr[0])>>8;
It's unclear what this comment is for.  Maybe just drop it?

Signed-off-by: Knut Kujat

With the formatting and comment addressed:
Acked-by: Myles Watson

Thanks,
Myles

[Knut Kujat]

Myles Watson escribió:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Knut Kujat <[e-mail]
> > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this patch fixes the issue where the board wasn't able to start after
> getting unplugged. I also added some GPIOs so now the power on led is
> working.
>
>
> The spacing doesn't look like it follows these guidelines:
> http://www.coreboot.org/Development_Guidelines#Coding_Style

Sorry, Patrick tells me so, too! I'll take a look at that article this
weekend.
> static inline void activate_spd_rom(const struct mem_controller *ctrl)
>  {
> /* nothing to do */
>
> +#define SMBUS_SWITCH1 0x70
> +#define SMBUS_SWITCH2 0x72
> +//     unsigned device=(ctrl->spd_addr[0])>>8;
> It's unclear what this comment is for.  Maybe just drop it?

Yes, that one can go, since I was testing multiple options because I
wasn't really sure what to do.
> Signed-off-by: Knut Kujat <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>
> With the formatting and comment addressed:
> Acked-by: Myles Watson <[e-mail] >
>
> Thanks,
> Myles

thx and have a nice weekend,
Knut Kujat.