Hi Yuantian
On 06/12/15 10:09 PM, Yuantian Tang wrote:
Hi York,
Please see explanation inline.
[...]
I was trying to use one function for all, but I found separating them is better.
Take ls1043a and ls2080a as an example, ls2080a has two controllers, while
ls1043a has one.
Ls2080a has two registers that need to be updated while ls1043a has four.
A lot of #ifdef are needed if we unify them, not mention that in the future,
changing one of the platforms' register will affect the other.
You might want to take into consideration that in the near future we
will be moving
this to dm. In that respect having all that in one file already will
probably make things
much easier. If you consider this, perhaps you will have a different view.
Maybe I am not thinking it through. If you can give me more detail that
viable, I can give a try.
[...]
ports, so we have to choice one. In this case I choice the first one which is
SATA1.
This should be put into comment, or README if you have one.
This phenomenon is not LS platform specific, that's uboot's issue which needs
another patch to fix.
I think uboot know that and choice to not fix it because for uboot supporting
two sata port is not that significant.
Again, with dm and reading all the hardware properties from device
tree will
also change this. If both device nodes are enabled we will have to
support both
as long as there is no hardware limitation. So I think there is no
reason why
having both SATA and PCIe would not be significant. It is just that the
current
implementation has this limitation and there is already some timeline
for removing
these limitations.
Regards
Sinan Akman
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
