Jens Scharsig wrote: > Dear Wolfgang Denk >> Dear Jens Scharsig, >> > >> This is close. Of course we should drop the AT91_REG and use standard >> types instead, and "PIO_OER" is not a logal variable name either >> because it's all-capitals. So this entry should rather look like this: >> >> ... >> u32 pio_oer; >> ... >>> and >>> >>> #define AT91C_BASE_PIOC ((AT91PS_PIO) 0xFFFFF800) >> This is definitely deprecated. >> >>> So the access should be >>> >>> AT91PS_PIO pioa = AT91C_BASE_PIOA; >>> ... >>> writel(AT91C_PA23_TXD2, &pioa->PIO_OER); >> Yes, except for the incorrect variable name. >> > > By the way, the AT91RM9200.h. has hundreds of style problems. > This requires a complete revision of the AT91RM9200.h. > I can try this, but will take a while and I can't test other > RM9200 boards. >
Please limit your changes to what you can test. Tom > > Best regards, > > Jens Scharsig > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot@lists.denx.de > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
