On 21/08/2012 14:56, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote: > Hi Stefano, > Hi,
>> The address depends on the SOC, and is not a board configuration >> option. >> Should we not use IIM_BASE_ADDR ? > > CONFIG_SYS_FSL_IIM_ADDR is supposed to be a board configuration option, just > like CONFIG_SYS_I2C_BASE. Ok, but the reason for CONFIG_SYS_I2C_BASE is that a SOC have multiple I2C controller, but u-boot supports only one of them (up now). Setting CONFIG_SYS_I2C_BASE we implicitely tell u-boot which controller is active. There is not multiple iim in the SOCs. For this reason I thought it is not a configuration option. > This makes things easier since on MPC this address > comes from a struct (&((immap_t *) CONFIG_SYS_IMMR)->iim). Or we could define > a > FSL_IIM_BASE_ADDR in all supported register definition files, but that would > mean including conditionally these files in fsl_iim.c. I understood the point. Ok, let's see which is the Anatolji's opinion for the PowerPC side. If he thinks it is ok, we can leave it with CONFIG_SYS_FSL_IIM_ADDR. Regards, Stefano -- ===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sba...@denx.de ===================================================================== _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot