Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] 85xx: properly document MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG

2008-10-18 Thread Timur Tabi
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Wolfgang Denk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +/* The 8544 RM says this is bit 26, but it's really bit 28 */ #define MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG0x0080 But 0x0080 is bit 24; bit 28 would be 0x0008 - or not? I just based my comment on the changelog of

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] 85xx: properly document MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG

2008-10-17 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Timur Tabi, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Commit f7d190b1 corrected the value of MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG, but forgot to add a comment that the correct value disagrees with the 8544 reference manual. Without this comment, a developer looking at the code would get confused.