Dear Nikhil Badola,
In message <1399468595-953-1-git-send-email-nikhil.bad...@freescale.com> you
wrote:
> Introduce new APIs to write fsl usb registers that have w1c bits.
> Existing API framework do not take care of w1c bits
Why exactly do we need a new API for that? All you'r doing is adding
just more bits to the mask, right?
> - setbits_be32(&ehci->control, PHY_CLK_SEL_UTMI);
> - setbits_be32(&ehci->control, UTMI_PHY_EN);
> + fsl_usb_setbits(&ehci->control, PHY_CLK_SEL_UTMI,
> + CONTROL_REGISTER_W1C_MASK);
> + fsl_usb_setbits(&ehci->control, UTMI_PHY_EN,
> + CONTROL_REGISTER_W1C_MASK);
...
> +#define CONTROL_REGISTER_W1C_MASK 0x00020000 /* W1C: PHY_CLK_VALID */
> +#define fsl_usb_setbits(_addr, _v, _mask) out_be32((_addr), \
> + ((in_be32(_addr) & ~_mask) | _v))
> +#define fsl_usb_clrbits(_addr, _v, _mask) out_be32((_addr), \
> + ((in_be32(_addr) & ~_mask) & ~_v))
> +
I cannot understand in which way
fsl_usb_setbits(&ehci->control, PHY_CLK_SEL_UTMI,
CONTROL_REGISTER_W1C_MASK);
would be different from
setbits_be32(&ehci->control, PHY_CLK_SEL_UTMI |
CONTROL_REGISTER_W1C_MASK);
?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: w...@denx.de
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the demigodic party.
-- Dennis Ritchie
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
