Dear Andreas, On Monday 01 November 2010, 11:57:14 Andreas Bießmann wrote: > Am 01.11.2010 um 09:29 schrieb Alexander Stein: > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Stein <alexander.st...@systec-electronic.com> > > --- > > arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91cap9.h | 12 ++++++++---- > > arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9260.h | 7 +++++++ > > arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9261.h | 4 ++++ > > arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9263.h | 3 +++ > > arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9g45.h | 5 +++++ > > arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9rl.h | 4 ++++ > > 6 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9g45.h > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9g45.h > > @@ -51,9 +51,14 @@ > > #define AT91SAM9G45_ID_VDEC 30 /* Video Decoder */ > > #define AT91SAM9G45_ID_IRQ0 31 /* Advanced Interrupt Controller */ > > > > +#define AT91_USART0_BASE 0xfff8c000 > > +#define AT91_USART1_BASE 0xfff90000 > > +#define AT91_USART2_BASE 0xfff94000 > > +#define AT91_USART3_BASE 0xfff98000 > > #define AT91_EMAC_BASE 0xfffbc000 > > #define AT91_SMC_BASE 0xffffe800 > > #define AT91_MATRIX_BASE 0xffffea00 > > +#define AT91_DBGU_BASE 0xffffee00 > > #define AT91_PIO_BASE 0xfffff200 > > #define AT91_PMC_BASE 0xfffffc00 > > #define AT91_RSTC_BASE 0xfffffd00 > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9rl.h > > b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9rl.h index 8eb0d4f..ffa6687 > > 100644 > > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9rl.h > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9rl.h > > @@ -44,6 +44,10 @@ > > #define AT91SAM9RL_ID_AC97C 24 /* AC97 Controller */ > > #define AT91SAM9RL_ID_IRQ0 31 /* Advanced Interrupt Controller (IRQ0) */ > > > > +#define AT91_US0_BASE 0xfffb0000 > > +#define AT91_US1_BASE 0xfffb4000 > > +#define AT91_US2_BASE 0xfffb8000 > > +#define AT91_US3_BASE 0xfffbc000 > > #define AT91_SDRAMC_BASE 0xffffea00 > > #define AT91_SMC_BASE 0xffffec00 > > #define AT91_MATRIX_BASE 0xffffee00 > > can we just use one naming scheme here? I dunno whether it should be > AT91_USx or AT91_USARTx but it should be the same in any case.
Yes, sure. I justed copied the dfine and reworded it to match the AT91_$COMPONENT_BASE scheme. Always using USARTx is fine though. Best regards, Alexander Stein _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
