Hi Andy,
in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sebastian Siewior wrote:
> * Andy Fleming | 2008-07-14 19:32:56 [-0500]:
...
> >This looks pretty good to me, but I'm not very familiar with this
> >code. Could you explain a little more deeply what is wrong with the
> >old way, and why the new way is bette
Hi,
> This actually shouldn't work. Imagina 0xf000 base address that
> gets translated into 0x1e000 and causes my box to hang. Writing
> to 0xf000 seems the better way.
> Also don't compare against the UPM mask but agaist the MSEL mask.
>
> Cc: Sergei Poselenov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: An
* Andy Fleming | 2008-07-14 19:32:56 [-0500]:
>> --- a/cpu/mpc85xx/cpu.c
>> +++ b/cpu/mpc85xx/cpu.c
>> @@ -71,8 +71,7 @@ struct cpu_type *identify_cpu(u32 ver)
>>
>> static void set_lcb_clock(uint clkdiv)
>> {
>> - volatile immap_t *immap = (immap_t *)CFG_IMMR;
>> - volatile ccsr_lbc
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:36 AM, Sebastian Siewior
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This actually shouldn't work. Imagina 0xf000 base address that
> gets translated into 0x1e000 and causes my box to hang. Writing
> to 0xf000 seems the better way.
> Also don't compare against the UPM mask but ag
This actually shouldn't work. Imagina 0xf000 base address that
gets translated into 0x1e000 and causes my box to hang. Writing
to 0xf000 seems the better way.
Also don't compare against the UPM mask but agaist the MSEL mask.
Cc: Sergei Poselenov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Andy Fleming <[EMAIL
