[U-Boot-Users] AT91 Header File Clarification

[U-Boot-Users] AT91 Header File Clarification

[Zac Wheeler]

I have a question about the arrangement of include files for the
at91sam9 family.

Is the intention that asm/arch/at91_xxx.h be applicable for all
at91sam9 microcontrollers, or should they be broken down into subarch
folders (e.g. asm/arch/at91sam9261/at91_pmc.h)?

I am trying to bring up the at91sam9261 on a custom board a little
ahead of what appears to be the schedule for the at91sam9261ek and I
want to try to be compatible with the existing format. I haven't done
a lot of comparisons between 9260/9261/9263, but for some things (e.g.
at91_lcd.h) it obviously depends on which microcontroller you're
using.

Thanks,
Zac

[U-Boot-Users] AT91 Header File Clarification

[Stelian Pop]

Le vendredi 04 avril 2008 ? 13:32 -0700, Zac Wheeler a ?crit :
> I have a question about the arrangement of include files for the
> at91sam9 family.
> 
> Is the intention that asm/arch/at91_xxx.h be applicable for all
> at91sam9 microcontrollers, or should they be broken down into subarch
> folders (e.g. asm/arch/at91sam9261/at91_pmc.h)?

They are supposed to be shareable for all at91sam microcontrollers, in
the same way it's done in Linux.

> I am trying to bring up the at91sam9261 on a custom board a little
> ahead of what appears to be the schedule for the at91sam9261ek and I
> want to try to be compatible with the existing format. 

I'm working on support for the at91sam9261, I will probably have a patch
for the end of the next week. Hopefully you can wait until then. If not,
please go ahead.

> I haven't done
> a lot of comparisons between 9260/9261/9263, but for some things (e.g.
> at91_lcd.h) 

There is no such file in u-boot, nor linux iirc. There is a atmel_lcdc.h
in Linux (and I plan importing it into U-Boot, but later...).

Stelian.
-- 
Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net>

[U-Boot-Users] AT91 Header File Clarification

[Zac Wheeler]

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net> wrote:
>
>  Le vendredi 04 avril 2008 ? 13:32 -0700, Zac Wheeler a ?crit :
>
> > I have a question about the arrangement of include files for the
>  > at91sam9 family.
>  >
>  > Is the intention that asm/arch/at91_xxx.h be applicable for all
>  > at91sam9 microcontrollers, or should they be broken down into subarch
>  > folders (e.g. asm/arch/at91sam9261/at91_pmc.h)?
>
>  They are supposed to be shareable for all at91sam microcontrollers, in
>  the same way it's done in Linux.

So should things like AT91_ECC as defined in at91sam960.h be
AT91SAM9260_ECC instead or moved to an at91_sys.h file? It seems
somewhat dangerous to define an AT91_ in a AT91SAM9260-specific file.

Sorry for my lack of understanding if I'm missing the point.

Zac

[U-Boot-Users] AT91 Header File Clarification

[Zac Wheeler]

On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net> wrote:
>
>  Le vendredi 04 avril 2008 ? 13:32 -0700, Zac Wheeler a ?crit :
>
> > I have a question about the arrangement of include files for the
>  > at91sam9 family.
>  >
>  > Is the intention that asm/arch/at91_xxx.h be applicable for all
>  > at91sam9 microcontrollers, or should they be broken down into subarch
>  > folders (e.g. asm/arch/at91sam9261/at91_pmc.h)?
>
>  They are supposed to be shareable for all at91sam microcontrollers, in
>  the same way it's done in Linux.
>
>
>  > I am trying to bring up the at91sam9261 on a custom board a little
>  > ahead of what appears to be the schedule for the at91sam9261ek and I
>  > want to try to be compatible with the existing format.
>
>  I'm working on support for the at91sam9261, I will probably have a patch
>  for the end of the next week. Hopefully you can wait until then. If not,
>  please go ahead.
>
>
>  > I haven't done
>  > a lot of comparisons between 9260/9261/9263, but for some things (e.g.
>  > at91_lcd.h)
>
>  There is no such file in u-boot, nor linux iirc. There is a atmel_lcdc.h
>  in Linux (and I plan importing it into U-Boot, but later...).

There is an at91_lcdc.h in Linux, but you're right, atmel_lcdc.h
appears to be the one that is used for the actual driver.

[U-Boot-Users] AT91 Header File Clarification

[Stelian Pop]

Le vendredi 04 avril 2008 ? 19:08 -0700, Zac Wheeler a ?crit :

> >  There is no such file in u-boot, nor linux iirc. There is a atmel_lcdc.h
> >  in Linux (and I plan importing it into U-Boot, but later...).
> 
> There is an at91_lcdc.h in Linux,

Was. It was removed in 2.6.25-rc1.

>  but you're right, atmel_lcdc.h
> appears to be the one that is used for the actual driver.
> 
-- 
Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net>

[U-Boot-Users] AT91 Header File Clarification

[Stelian Pop]

Le vendredi 04 avril 2008 ? 16:32 -0700, Zac Wheeler a ?crit :
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net> wrote:
> >
> >  Le vendredi 04 avril 2008 ? 13:32 -0700, Zac Wheeler a ?crit :
> >
> > > I have a question about the arrangement of include files for the
> >  > at91sam9 family.
> >  >
> >  > Is the intention that asm/arch/at91_xxx.h be applicable for all
> >  > at91sam9 microcontrollers, or should they be broken down into subarch
> >  > folders (e.g. asm/arch/at91sam9261/at91_pmc.h)?
> >
> >  They are supposed to be shareable for all at91sam microcontrollers, in
> >  the same way it's done in Linux.
> 
> So should things like AT91_ECC as defined in at91sam960.h be
> AT91SAM9260_ECC instead or moved to an at91_sys.h file?

No, the idea is to keep the same conventions as the kernel guys. In fact
the header files have been copied from Linux, and are 95% identical to
them (we cannot use the header files provided by Atmel, because there is
too much craft inside, and rewriting a third form of the same headers
seemed to me too error prone).

As for AT91_ECC:

at91cap9.h:#define AT91_ECC     (0xffffe200 - AT91_BASE_SYS)
at91sam9260.h:#define AT91_ECC  (0xffffe800 - AT91_BASE_SYS)
at91sam9263.h:#define AT91_ECC0 (0xffffe000 - AT91_BASE_SYS)
at91sam9263.h:#define AT91_ECC1 (0xffffe600 - AT91_BASE_SYS)
at91sam9rl.h:#define AT91_ECC   (0xffffe800 - AT91_BASE_SYS)

seems to me quite nice this way !

>  It seems
> somewhat dangerous to define an AT91_ in a AT91SAM9260-specific file.

It shouldn't be. All the AT91 platforms have pretty much the same
hardware, so having the same constants means we don't need extra #ifdefs
in the driver code.

Of course, one should take care of including only the header file which
goes with his platform. This is what
include/asm-arm/arch-at91sam9/hardware.h does: based on what
CONFIG_AT91xxxxx is defined, the relevant platform specific header file
is included.

Stelian.
-- 
Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net>