Achim Ehrlich wrote: > Tom wrote: >> Achim Ehrlich wrote: >>> This adds support for the AT91SAM9G20 boards by taskit GmbH. >>> Both boards, Stamp9G20 and PortuxG20, are integrated in one file. >>> PortuxG20 is basically a SBC built around Stamp9G20. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Achim Ehrlich <aehrl...@taskit.de> >>> --- >>> MAINTAINERS | 5 + >>> MAKEALL | 1 + >>> Makefile | 4 + >>> board/taskit/stamp9G20/Makefile | 50 +++++++++ >>> board/taskit/stamp9G20/config.mk | 1 + >>> board/taskit/stamp9G20/stamp9G20.c | 203 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> include/configs/stamp9G20.h | 180 >>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 7 files changed, 444 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 board/taskit/stamp9G20/Makefile >>> create mode 100644 board/taskit/stamp9G20/config.mk >>> create mode 100644 board/taskit/stamp9G20/stamp9G20.c >>> create mode 100644 include/configs/stamp9G20.h >>> >> Are more taskit based boards expected? >> If not taskit/stamp9G20 could be reduced to just taskit >> > > Yes, there are more taskit boards expected. >
Ok >>> diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS >>> index 7f40ebd..c4259a0 100644 <snip> >>> + writel(AT91_SMC_MODE_RM_NRD | AT91_SMC_MODE_WM_NWE | >>> + AT91_SMC_MODE_EXNW_DISABLE | >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SYS_NAND_DBW_16 >>> + AT91_SMC_MODE_DBW_16 | >>> +#else /* CONFIG_SYS_NAND_DBW_8 */ >>> + AT91_SMC_MODE_DBW_8 | >>> +#endif >> CONFIG_SYS_NAND_DBW_16 is unused. >> The if-def should be removed >> Expecting dead code to be removed >>> + AT91_SMC_MODE_TDF_CYCLE(2), >>> + &smc->cs[3].mode); >>> + <snip> >>> + /* adress of boot parameters */ >>> + gd->bd->bi_boot_params = CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE + 0x100; >>> + >>> + at91_set_pio_output(AT91_PIO_PORTC, 9, 1); >>> + at91_set_pio_output(AT91_PIO_PORTC, 5, 1); >> Change immediates to logical #defines > > Sorry, I don't get that clearly. In the moment I would take that to mean > that I should do something like > #define CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE + 0x100 > in the appropriate place > and use here: > gd->bd->bi_boot_params = CONFIG_BOOT_PARAMS > or am I wrong? I was referring to 9 and 5 arguments to at91_set_pio_output You could also change the bi_boot_params but that isn't as important. > >>> + >>> + at91_serial_hw_init(); <snip> >>> + >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_USE_IRQ >>> +#error CONFIG_USE_IRQ not supported >>> +#endif >>> + >>> +#endif > > Thanks for your attention > > Kind regards > > Achim > Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
