Hi Wolfgang,
Am 06.05.2013 17:22, schrieb Wolfgang Denk:
Dear Dirk Eibach,
In message <e8fccb4d422d619744521268691e5...@gdsys.cc> you wrote:
You had the this, and now attempt to throw it away. This makes no
sense.
In fact it does.
We have FPGAs that are memory mapped and others that are not. They
must
be accessed by the same drivers. So the alternative would be to
create
FPGA instances at address NULL and getting the register offesets by
casting pointers to u16. Not very nice either.
Your new code still boils down to using the same standard I/O
accessors.
So your FPGA registers must be mapped somehow to I/O memory.
When you can do something like
+u16 fpga_get_reg(unsigned int fpga, u16 reg)
+{
+ return in_le16((u16 *)CONFIG_SYS_FPGA_BASE(fpga) + reg /
sizeof(u16));
+}
why would you not be able to continue using in_le16() directly?
Sorry, I don't get it.
Read the source, Luke :)
On our iocon platform you find:
+void fpga_set_reg(unsigned int fpga, u16 reg, u16 data)
+{
+ int res;
+ struct ihs_fpga *fpga_0 = (struct ihs_fpga *)CONFIG_SYS_FPGA_BASE(0);
+
+ switch (fpga) {
+ case 0:
+ out_le16((u16 *)fpga_0 + reg / sizeof(u16), data);
+ break;
+ default:
+ res = mclink_send(fpga - 1, reg, data);
+ if (res < 0)
+ printf("mclink_send reg %02x data %04x returned %d\n",
+ reg, data, res);
+ break;
+ }
+}
So no memory mapping here. That's the reason for all this fuzz.
And sorry for the messed up series. Sometimes rebase can make things
worse :)
Cheers
Dirk
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
