On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Mike Frysinger <vap...@gentoo.org> wrote: > 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.
Okay. > >> --- 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 Will be deleted. > >> --- /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 ? > This will be removed. We only support board version above 1.0. > 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. I don't know whether a blackfin specific u-boot command can be accepted. What about merge these series with the default setting first? Because it's already a little big, let's make it simple at first. And then we can consider to add a new command in a separated patch in future. Thank you. -- Regards, --Bob _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot