On Apr 1, 2009, at 10:56 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> diff --git a/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.h b/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.h
>>> index 4329286..b06707f 100644
>>> --- a/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.h
>>> +++ b/cpu/mpc85xx/mp.h
>>> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ ulong get_spin_addr(void);
>>> void setup_mp(void);
>>> u32 get_my_id(void);
>>> void cpu_mp_lmb_reserve(struct lmb *lmb);
>>> +u32 determine_bootpg(void);
>>
>> This hunk is bogus - it's wrong, and doesn't belong in this patch,
>> anyway.
>
> oops, thought I had caught that.
>
>>> #define BOOT_ENTRY_ADDR_UPPER 0
>>> #define BOOT_ENTRY_ADDR_LOWER 1
>
>
>
>>> diff --git a/cpu/mpc86xx/mp.c b/cpu/mpc86xx/mp.c
>>> index 5014401..b4c6b79 100644
>>> --- a/cpu/mpc86xx/mp.c
>>> +++ b/cpu/mpc86xx/mp.c
>>> @@ -8,16 +8,39 @@
>>>
>>> DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
>>>
>>> -#if (CONFIG_NUM_CPUS > 1)
>>> -void cpu_mp_lmb_reserve(struct lmb *lmb)
>>> +int cpu_reset(int nr)
>>> +{
>>> + volatile immap_t *immr = (immap_t *)CONFIG_SYS_IMMR;
>>> + volatile ccsr_pic_t *pic = &immr->im_pic;
>>> + out_be32(&pic->pir, 1 << nr);
>>> + (void)in_be32(&pic->pir);
>>> + out_be32(&pic->pir, 0x0);
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +int cpu_status(int nr)
>>> +{
>>> + return 1;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +int cpu_release(int nr, int argc, char *argv[])
>>> {
>>> - u32 bootpg;
>>> + return 1;
>>> +}
>>
>> Should probably add comments as to why these do nothing right now....
>
> will do.
>
>>> +u32 determine_mp_bootpg(void)
>>> +{
>>> /* if we have 4G or more of memory, put the boot page at 4Gb-1M */
>>> if ((u64)gd->ram_size > 0xfffff000)
>>> - bootpg = 0xfff00000;
>>> - else
>>> - bootpg = gd->ram_size - (1024 * 1024);
>>> + return (0xfff00000);
>>> +
>>> + return (gd->ram_size - (1024 * 1024));
>>
>> Seems like we might want to define a BOOTPG_ALIGN somewhere, even
>> if it's just at the top of this file for the moment. At some
>> point(later is fine) we need to talk about creating a common spot
>> for code like this, because once there's BOOTPG_ALIGN defined,
>> this code could be common between 85xx/86xx. (There's other code in
>> this file that could likely be made common between platforms.... so
>> I consider that a future item, not something that should affect the
>> acceptance of this patch).
>
> I don't plan on adding BOOTPG_ALIGN at this point. I agree that
> some of this code is common and get be refactored into cpu/mpc8xxx/
> but I leave that for a future patch and will let that patch deal w/
> BOOTPG_ALIGN.
That's fine with me - I have that on my todo list :) If you get to it
first, woohoo :)
-B
>
>
> - k
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
