From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mateusz Kulikowski <mateusz.kulikowski@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 22:30:58 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] arm: at91: support for the Calao USB-A9263
 board (based on AT91SAM9263)
In-Reply-To: <526DEEAB.4090403@atmel.com>
References: <1382902453-6659-1-git-send-email-mateusz.kulikowski@gmail.com>
	<526DEEAB.4090403@atmel.com>
Message-ID: <526ED792.6070203@gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Bo Shen,

Thanks for the check, please see below.

On 28.10.2013 05:57, Bo Shen wrote:
> Hi Mateusz Kulikowski,
>    Add Andreas in loop.
>
> On 10/28/2013 03:34, Mateusz Kulikowski wrote:
(...)
>> +    /*
>> +     * Disable pull-up on:
>> +     *  RXDV (PC25) => PHY normal mode (not Test mode)
>> +     *  ERX0 (PE25) => PHY ADDR0
>> +     *  ERX1 (PE26) => PHY ADDR1 => PHYADDR = 0x0
>> +     *
>> +     * PHY has internal pull-down
>> +     */
>> +    writel(1 << 25, &pio->pioc.pudr);
>> +    writel((1 << 25) | (1 << 26), &pio->pioe.pudr);
>
> Use GPIO API instead of hard code.

Should I also update (in separate patch) at91sam9263ek board
(code is the same there, bad side is - I don't have that board to test)?

>> +
>> +#define CONFIG_SYS_TEXT_BASE 0x23f00000
>
> This address should be considered as u-boot is top down map, so if your system only 64MiB, there is only 1MiB left.

I don't understand something here:
- this address is hardcoded in AT91bootstrap (as well as image size - 0x31000),

- I can change it, but it will not boot on "stock" board - should we force
people to recompile AT91bootstrap if they want to use new U-Boot?
or
- Should I add low-level initialization to boot U-Boot from Dataflash
without AT91bootstrap (this is a bit more work)?
or
- There is another way I'm not aware of (perhaps relocate U-Boot in RAM)?

Best Regards,
Mateusz Kulikowski