On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:31:12 -0700 David Brownell <davi...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Thursday 16 April 2009, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > On 15:44 Sun 12 Apr , David Brownell wrote: > > > could you split it in more logical change please > > I'll fragment it a bit more, ok. later. > > > > > @@ -129,10 +122,12 @@ void davinci_enable_uart0(void) > > > lpsc_on(DAVINCI_LPSC_UART0); > > > > > > /* Bringup UART0 out of reset */ > > > - REG(UART0_PWREMU_MGMT) = 0x0000e003; > > > + REG(UART0_PWREMU_MGMT) = 0x00006001; > > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SOC_DM6446 > > > /* Enable UART0 MUX lines */ > > > - REG(PINMUX1) |= PINMUX1_UART0; > > > + REG(PINMUX1) |= DM644X_PINMUX1_UART0; > > > > is this the same for all DM6446? > > and the same question for the I2C and EMAC > > Yes, that's why I did it that way. PINMUX1 is part > of the DM6446 SoC itself, not an FPGA or CPLD, and > on other SoCs the bits in that register have different > meanings assigned. UART0 might be in PINMUX4, etc. > > (Or, if by "this" you meant the PWREMU_MGMT register, > that's also a yes ... plus, I looked at docs for other > DaVinci chips, and they all have the same definition > for that register.) Hi David, I would suggest renaming (or adding) CONFIG_SOC_DM6446 to CONFIG_SOC_DM644x and also introducing CONFIG_SOC_DM35x, so that we don't have to add a switch statement with all the variants inside one family. Hugo V. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
