On Tuesday 07 August 2012 04:07:45 Bob Liu wrote: > --- a/board/bf609-ezkit/Makefile > +++ b/board/bf609-ezkit/Makefile > > +COBJS-$(CONFIG_BFIN_SOFT_SWITCH) += soft_switch.o
is there any reason we *wouldn't* want to build this ? i would just skip
making this an option and always enable it.
also, any reason for not just squashing into the initial bf609-ezkit board
port ? there's quite a bit of rudimentary code in bf609-ezkit.c before to
support this.
> --- a/board/bf609-ezkit/bf609-ezkit.c
> +++ b/board/bf609-ezkit/bf609-ezkit.c
>
> +/* miscellaneous platform dependent initialisations */
> +int misc_init_r(void)
> +{
> + printf("other init\n");
useless display -> delete
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/board/bf609-ezkit/soft_switch.c
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BFIN_BOARD_VERSION_1_0
> +#define SWITCH_ADDR 0x21
> +#else
> +#define SWITCH_ADDR 0x20
> +#endif
must this be a runtime define ? can't you probe the slave address at runtime
to figure out which one to use ?
start with the address that the newest boards are using, and then fallback to
the older ones. this way there's no runtime penalty on newer boards, but
older ones continue to work.
shouldn't there be a new u-boot command here so people can toggle peripherals
themselves ? i thought that was the intention when we first discussed this
idea with the firmware team.
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
