Hi Tom,
> This patch is premature.
> I need to see this patch within the context of the new SOC.
>
> For a new SOC, I would like it be added as a new sub dir off of cpu/arm1176.
> At the same level as s3c64xx. So this dir would look like.
>
> config.mk cpu.c Makefile new_soc_name s3c64xx st
Nick,
> Since this is really just a constant, why setup a variable locally where
> ever EMIF registers are accessed? What's wrong with the define you removed
> below? ...
> > -#define davinci_emif_regs \
> > - ((struct davinci_emif_regs *)DAVINCI_ASYNC_EMIF_CNTRL_BASE)
> ...This one.
Thanks. I
Hi Scott,
> Configuring for davinci_schmoogie board...
> ...
> Should be lowercase?
Thank you. I will be sending out a v2 shortly, and this time around all 8
davinci based boards build fine.
> Also, any particular reason to use the raw version of the accessors?
Please correct me if I am wrong
Tom,
> I was not able to access this link
> But, yes, please include this patch as part of the tnetv107x patchset.
Sure. I will include this with the larger TNETV107X patchset and submit.
Until then, a code preview can be found at
http://arago-project.org/git/people/?p=cyril/u-boot-tnetv107x.gi
Hi Nick,
> I didn't check, but I would assume checkpatch would complain about the
> spaces that have crept in here?
Interestingly checkpatch complains only if it finds 8 or more spaces at the
beginning of the line (below). For some reason, vim cindent inserted 7 spaces
in there, and that kept
Hi Wolfgang,
> You might want to define a macro to reduce the amount of repeated
> code here.
Will do in v2.
> > +void lpsc_control(unsigned int id, int state)
> > +{
> > + __lpsc_control(1, -1, id, state);
> > +}
> > +
> > +int lpsc_status(unsigned int id)
> > +{
> > + return psc_reg_read(P
Hi Wolfgang,
Thanks. Will send out a v2 with these changed.
[...]
> > +#define MTDPARTS_DEFAULT "mtdparts=davinci_nand.0:" \
> > + "1536k(uboot)ro," \
> > + "128k(params)ro," \
> > +
Wolfgang,
[...]
> > > Is "davinci" correct here?
> >
> > Yes, this SOC has the exact same controller as on Davinci, and therefore
> > the NAND driver is reused.
>
> But you don't call this a "Davinci"-Board, or do you?
"Davinci NAND" is a bit of a misnomer since this particular EMIF block is
com
8 matches
Mail list logo
