Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2][for v2008.10] 85xx: Using proper I2C source clock divider for MPC8544

2008-10-20 Thread Jerry Van Baren
Timur Tabi wrote: Kumar Gala wrote: How about adding a comment that the RM is wrong? Any time the code disagrees with the RM, it *has* to be documented. Its documented in the commit. Sorry, but that's just not good enough for me. I *hate* it when people say that it is. When I'm

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2][for v2008.10] 85xx: Using proper I2C source clock divider for MPC8544

2008-10-20 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Jerry Van Baren, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Would it really have been so hard to add this line? /* The MPC8544 RM says it's bit 26, but it's really bit 28 */ I have to agree with Timur, we *need* a comment in the source code for future reference. The git log is

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2][for v2008.10] 85xx: Using proper I2C source clock divider for MPC8544

2008-10-20 Thread Kumar Gala
On Oct 20, 2008, at 2:22 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote: Dear Jerry Van Baren, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Would it really have been so hard to add this line? /* The MPC8544 RM says it's bit 26, but it's really bit 28 */ I have to agree with Timur, we *need* a comment in the source

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2][for v2008.10] 85xx: Using proper I2C source clock divider for MPC8544

2008-10-17 Thread Wolfgang Grandegger
Hi Kumar, Kumar Gala wrote: The MPC8544 RM incorrect shows the SEC_CFG bit in PORDEVSR2 as being bit 26, instead it should be bit 28. This caused in incorrect interpretation of the i2c_clk which is the same as the SEC clk on MPC8544. The SEC clk is controlled by cfg_sec_freq that is

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2][for v2008.10] 85xx: Using proper I2C source clock divider for MPC8544

2008-10-17 Thread Timur Tabi
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -#define MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG 0x0020 +#define MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG 0x0080 How about adding a comment that the RM is wrong? Any time the code disagrees with the RM, it *has* to be documented. --

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2][for v2008.10] 85xx: Using proper I2C source clock divider for MPC8544

2008-10-17 Thread Kumar Gala
On Oct 17, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -#define MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG 0x0020 +#define MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG 0x0080 How about adding a comment that the RM is wrong? Any time the code

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2][for v2008.10] 85xx: Using proper I2C source clock divider for MPC8544

2008-10-17 Thread Timur Tabi
Kumar Gala wrote: How about adding a comment that the RM is wrong? Any time the code disagrees with the RM, it *has* to be documented. Its documented in the commit. Sorry, but that's just not good enough for me. I *hate* it when people say that it is. When I'm looking at some code, and

[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2][for v2008.10] 85xx: Using proper I2C source clock divider for MPC8544

2008-10-16 Thread Kumar Gala
The MPC8544 RM incorrect shows the SEC_CFG bit in PORDEVSR2 as being bit 26, instead it should be bit 28. This caused in incorrect interpretation of the i2c_clk which is the same as the SEC clk on MPC8544. The SEC clk is controlled by cfg_sec_freq that is reported in PORDEVSR2. Signed-off-by: