The MPC8544 RM incorrect shows the SEC_CFG bit in PORDEVSR2 as being
bit 26, instead it should be bit 28. This caused in incorrect
interpretation of the i2c_clk which is the same as the SEC clk on
MPC8544. The SEC clk is controlled by cfg_sec_freq that is reported
in PORDEVSR2.
Signed-off-by: Ku
Dear Kumar Gala,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> The MPC8544 RM incorrect shows the SEC_CFG bit in PORDEVSR2 as being
> bit 26, instead it should be bit 28. This caused in incorrect
> interpretation of the i2c_clk which is the same as the SEC clk on
> MPC8544. The SEC clk is controll
Hi Kumar,
Kumar Gala wrote:
> The MPC8544 RM incorrect shows the SEC_CFG bit in PORDEVSR2 as being
> bit 26, instead it should be bit 28. This caused in incorrect
> interpretation of the i2c_clk which is the same as the SEC clk on
> MPC8544. The SEC clk is controlled by cfg_sec_freq that is repo
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -#define MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG 0x0020
> +#define MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG 0x0080
How about adding a comment that the RM is wrong? Any time the code
disagrees with the RM, it *has* to be documented.
On Oct 17, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Kumar Gala
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> -#define MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG 0x0020
>> +#define MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG 0x0080
>
> How about adding a comment that the RM is wrong? Any time
Kumar Gala wrote:
>> How about adding a comment that the RM is wrong? Any time the code
>> disagrees with the RM, it *has* to be documented.
>
> Its documented in the commit.
Sorry, but that's just not good enough for me. I *hate* it when people say that
it is.
When I'm looking at some code,
Timur Tabi wrote:
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>
>>> How about adding a comment that the RM is wrong? Any time the code
>>> disagrees with the RM, it *has* to be documented.
>> Its documented in the commit.
>
> Sorry, but that's just not good enough for me. I *hate* it when people say
> that
> it is.
Dear Jerry Van Baren,
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> > Would it really have been so hard to add this line?
> >
> > /* The MPC8544 RM says it's bit 26, but it's really bit 28 */
>
> I have to agree with Timur, we *need* a comment in the source code for
> future reference. The git
On Oct 20, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Jerry Van Baren,
>
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>>
>>> Would it really have been so hard to add this line?
>>>
>>> /* The MPC8544 RM says it's bit 26, but it's really bit 28 */
>>
>> I have to agree with Timur, we *need* a co
9 matches
Mail list logo
