Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-30 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Jens Scharsig, In message 4ae99ba5.3090...@bus-elektronik.de you wrote: 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. I am aware of these

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-30 Thread Jens Scharsig
Dear Wolfgang Denk Dear Jens Scharsig, In message 4ae99ba5.3090...@bus-elektronik.de you wrote: 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.

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-29 Thread Jens Scharsig
Dear Wolfgang Denk writel(AT91C_PA23_TXD2, AT91C_PIOA_OER); is the most correct way. most correct way are big words. No, this is not correct at all. The whole set of address / offset definitions in include/asm-arm/arch-at91rm9200/AT91RM9200.h should be turned into a C struct. I've got

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-29 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Jens Scharsig, In message 4ae946e7.4050...@bus-elektronik.de you wrote: If I understand you correctly now? The train goes in the opposite direction. in the AT91RM9200.h a port is defined as typedef struct _AT91S_PIO { ... AT91_REG PIO_OER; /* Output

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-29 Thread Jens Scharsig
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; ...

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-29 Thread Tom
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

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-29 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Tom, In message 4ae99f40.4000...@windriver.com you wrote: 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

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-29 Thread Tom
Wolfgang Denk wrote: Dear Tom, In message 4ae99f40.4000...@windriver.com you wrote: 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

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-28 Thread Jens Scharsig
Dear Wolfgang Denk, writel(AT91C_PA23_TXD2, ((AT91PS_PIO) AT91C_BASE_PIOA)-PIO_OER); like notation Close, but please also get rid of this ((AT91PS_PIO) AT91C_BASE_PIOA) thing, especialy the cast is nasty. Declare a real pointer variable to the respective data structure, and use that. I,

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-28 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Jens Scharsig, In message 4ae81893.30...@bus-elektronik.de you wrote: Close, but please also get rid of this ((AT91PS_PIO) AT91C_BASE_PIOA) thing, especialy the cast is nasty. Declare a real pointer variable to the respective data structure, and use that. I, think

[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-27 Thread Jens Scharsig
This patch adds a new ARM AT91RM9200 board, named EB+CPUx9K2. * support for EB+CPUx9K2 board by BuS Elektronik GmbH Co. KG * select via make EB_CPUx9K2_config Signed-off-by: Jens Scharsig e...@bus-elektronik.de --- This patch needs the [PATCH] AT91RM9200 BGA port D defines

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-27 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Jens Scharsig, In message 4ae6b186.9030...@bus-elektronik.de you wrote: This patch adds a new ARM AT91RM9200 board, named EB+CPUx9K2. * support for EB+CPUx9K2 board by BuS Elektronik GmbH Co. KG * select via make EB_CPUx9K2_config Signed-off-by: Jens Scharsig

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-27 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Jens Scharsig, In message 4ae6b186.9030...@bus-elektronik.de you wrote: This patch adds a new ARM AT91RM9200 board, named EB+CPUx9K2. And by the way: please chose a board name that can be used consistently: +EB_CPUx9K2_config: unconfig + @$(MKCONFIG) $(@:_config=) arm

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-27 Thread Jens Scharsig
Wolfgang Denk schrieb: Dear Jens Scharsig, +int board_init(void) +{ +/* Enable Ctrlc */ +console_init_f(); + +/* Correct IRDA resistor problem / Set PA23_TXD in Output */ +((AT91PS_PIO) AT91C_BASE_PIOA)-PIO_OER = AT91C_PA23_TXD2; Please use I/O accessors to access device

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-27 Thread Jens Scharsig
Wolfgang Denk schrieb: And by the way: please chose a board name that can be used consistently: +EB_CPUx9K2_config : unconfig +@$(MKCONFIG) $(@:_config=) arm arm920t EB+CPUx9K2 BuS at91rm9200 If the target name is EB_CPUx9K2 (why are you shouting here?) then the board

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-27 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Jens Scharsig, In message 4ae7110b.7030...@bus-elektronik.de you wrote: Wolfgang Denk schrieb: And by the way: please chose a board name that can be used consistently: +EB_CPUx9K2_config : unconfig + @$(MKCONFIG) $(@:_config=) arm arm920t EB+CPUx9K2 BuS at91rm9200 If

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

2009-10-27 Thread Scott Wood
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:02:34PM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote: +#define CONFIG_SYS_FLASH_ERASE_TOUT(6*CONFIG_SYS_HZ) +#define CONFIG_SYS_FLASH_WRITE_TOUT(2*CONFIG_SYS_HZ) This looks wrong to me. A timeout is a time, but CONFIG_SYS_HZ is a frequency, i. e. the inverse of a