From: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@grandegger.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Added support for multiple serial for MPC8XX (resubmit)
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:18:17 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46761599.90003@grandegger.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200706171531.33232.sbabic@denx.de>
Stefano Babic wrote:
> On Friday 15 June 2007 21:38, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> #if defined(CONFIG_8xx_CONS_SMC2) && (defined(CONFIG_MPC823) ||
>> defined(CONFIG_MPC850))
>> volatile iop8xx_t *ip = (iop8xx_t *)&(im->im_ioport);
>> #endif
>
> I see, on MPC823 the port for SMC2 is not configured if both SMCs are used :(.
>
>> you could simple write:
>>
>> if (smc_index == SMC1_INDEX) {
>> /* Use Port B for SMC1 instead of other functions.
>> */
>> cp->cp_pbpar |= 0x000000c0;
>> cp->cp_pbdir &= ~0x000000c0;
>> cp->cp_pbodr &= ~0x000000c0;
>> }
>
> You are right, but my intention was to assure the highest backward
> compatibility, because I am aware that a lot of boards are currently using
> this driver. Changes as you suggest have a (small) impact on the runtime
> behavior, because, to clean up the code, parameter values as
> PROFF_SMC,CPM_CR_CH_SMC must be taken from the structure I fill in. I could
> simplify other parts of code as allocating the buffers from DPRAM from:
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_SERIAL_MULTI
> dpaddr=ALIGN(CPM_SERIAL_BASE+(sizeof(cbd_t)*2+2)*smc_index,8);
> #else
> dpaddr=CPM_SERIAL_BASE;
> #endif
>
> into simply:
> dpaddr=ALIGN(CPM_SERIAL_BASE+(sizeof(cbd_t)*2+2)*smc_index,8);
>
> Theoretically, no problem, there is enough place in DPRAM to do this. To be
> really sure, it should be tested on all boards :(.
I did not propose to use more DPRAM space, but writing the driver in a
way, that it can handle both, the compile and run-time selection with
less #ifdef's.
> I know, we are talking about small changes but I gave compatibility the
> highest priority doing this job.
>
> Now if CONFIG_SERIAL_MULTI is not set, we have (quite) the same driver as in
> the past.
>
> However, I agree with you that this makes code less readable :(.
If we go on like that, U-Boot code becomes more and more unreadable. To
improve code quality, take the risk. Nevertheless, I think what is
really missing is a clever device interface.
Wolfgang.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-18 5:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-05 12:47 [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Added support for multiple serial for MPC8XX Stefano Babic
2007-06-05 13:53 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-06-05 19:39 ` Stefano Babic
2007-06-05 23:49 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-06-06 5:08 ` Stefan Roese
2007-06-06 13:03 ` Stefano Babic
2007-06-06 13:13 ` Stefan Roese
2007-06-06 13:27 ` Stefano Babic
2007-06-06 13:55 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-06-06 14:20 ` Stefano Babic
2007-06-06 21:35 ` [U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Added support for multiple serial for MPC8XX (resubmit) Stefano Babic
2007-06-15 16:03 ` Detlev Zundel
2007-06-15 19:38 ` Wolfgang Grandegger
2007-06-17 13:31 ` Stefano Babic
2007-06-17 21:16 ` Wolfgang Denk
2007-06-18 5:18 ` Wolfgang Grandegger [this message]
2007-06-17 11:35 ` Stefano Babic
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=46761599.90003@grandegger.com \
--to=wg@grandegger.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox