Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] 85xx: Fix the wrong CSIZE mask bit

2008-12-17 Thread Liu Dave
> Ok. I'd prefer we just expand the field to 0x3ff to match the EREF > spec since the upper bits are reserved we'll always read them > as 0 so no harm. And we dont have to change the code again in > the future if we expand into those upper bits. If match the EREF, it should be 0x7ff. and it al

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] 85xx: Fix the wrong CSIZE mask bit

2008-12-17 Thread Kumar Gala
On Dec 16, 2008, at 5:47 PM, Liu Dave wrote: >> was code breaking or just fixing it up to match the docs? > > not break the system, because the bit[55] is reserved zero for > e500/e500mc. > so just fixied it to match the e500/e500mc docs. Ok. I'd prefer we just expand the field to 0x3ff to match

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] 85xx: Fix the wrong CSIZE mask bit

2008-12-16 Thread Liu Dave
> was code breaking or just fixing it up to match the docs? not break the system, because the bit[55] is reserved zero for e500/e500mc. so just fixied it to match the e500/e500mc docs. ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mai

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] 85xx: Fix the wrong CSIZE mask bit

2008-12-16 Thread Kumar Gala
On Dec 15, 2008, at 10:09 PM, Dave Liu wrote: > The CSIZE is L1CFG0[56-63] in the e500 and e500mc core, > so we should mask 0xff, not 0x1ff. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Liu > --- > cpu/mpc85xx/start.S |4 ++-- > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) was code breaking or just fixing it

[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/3] 85xx: Fix the wrong CSIZE mask bit

2008-12-15 Thread Dave Liu
The CSIZE is L1CFG0[56-63] in the e500 and e500mc core, so we should mask 0xff, not 0x1ff. Signed-off-by: Dave Liu --- cpu/mpc85xx/start.S |4 ++-- 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S b/cpu/mpc85xx/start.S index 80f9677..cfa53c0 100644 --- a/cpu