[U-Boot] [PATCH] fix IDE_BUS(dev) macro

Tom Rini
2012-10-07T14:40:07Z

On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Albert ARIBAUD
<albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> wrote:
> Hi uboot at lukaperkov.net,
>
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 09:15:52 +0200, uboot at lukaperkov.net wrote:
>
>> Hi Tom, Albert, Prafulla and others,
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 09:06:49PM +0200, Luka Perkov wrote:
>> > IDE_BUS assumes that each bus has two devices and thus returns the first
>> > bus even when the second one should be probed.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Simon Baatz <gmbnomis@gmail.com>
>> > Tested-by: Luka Perkov <uboot@lukaperkov.net>
>> > ---
>> >
>> > Simon discovered this while adding support for new board IB NAS6210.
>> >
>> > More info can be found here:
>> >
>> > http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-April/122525.html
>> >
>> > When this is commited I will do a coding style cleanup. There are tabs
>> > after few "#define" parts in include/ide.h.
>> >
>> > include/ide.h | 2 +-
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/ide.h b/include/ide.h
>> > index 8ecc9dd..385e909 100644
>> > --- a/include/ide.h
>> > +++ b/include/ide.h
>> > @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
>> > #ifndef _IDE_H
>> > #define _IDE_H
>> >
>> > -#define IDE_BUS(dev) (dev >> 1)
>> > +#define IDE_BUS(dev) (dev / (CONFIG_SYS_IDE_MAXDEVICE / CONFIG_SYS_IDE_MAXBUS))
>> >
>> > #define ATA_CURR_BASE(dev) (CONFIG_SYS_ATA_BASE_ADDR+ide_bus_offset[IDE_BUS(dev)])
>> >
>>
>> I have assigned this patch to Tom in patchwork here:
>>
>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/159129/
>>
>> From when it was submitted we have got confirmations that this patch
>> does the job for kirkwood boards on the u-boot mailing list:
>>
>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-April/122684.html
>> http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2012-June/125658.html
>>
>> It would be nice if this patch would enter v2012.10 release. At least
>> someone could pull it into his repo so it can find it's way into master
>> eventually.
>
> As discussed on IRC, there are tests that actually cover the plaforms I
> should have tested myself, so I personally think this can go in 2012.10.

OK, I'll pick this up Monday, thanks.

--
Tom