[U-Boot] [PATCH] OMAP3EVM: net_chip uses CS5 not CS6

[Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@googlemail.com>]

Hi,

Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>> Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>> Dear Scott Wood,
>>>
>>> In message <4A034B09.7030105@freescale.com> you wrote:
>>>>> Or what replaced the "immr" structs?
>>>> The device tree, mainly...
>>> Right, of course.
>>>
>>>>                      ...  But #defines can work for u-boot.
>>> Of course they _can_ work. But they can easily fail (as we just see
>>> in this patch), and we don't have typechecking. So until DT's are
>>> omnipresent, let's use structs in U-Boot, please.
>> You *do* have typechecking as long as the individual blocks are 
>> described with structs.
>>
>> We could take immap to extremes by defining one big 4GiB struct that 
>> shows where memory, immr, flash, desired PCI bars, FPGAs, etc. are -- 
>> but that would be silly.  IMHO, so is doing it at the immr level. :-)
>>
>> How would you deal with blocks being at different locations in different 
>> chips?  It's a lot easier to ifdef (or have the config file specify) a 
>> couple addresses than to ifdef the locations of fields in a struct, 
>> especially when you have more than a couple variations.
> 
> For what its worth, I'm with Scott here.  Structures for register blocks
> is very nice and should be mandated and it seems they are maintainable.
> Locations of individual blocks (or number of incarnations thereof) seem
> to change frequently and thus tend to be less friendly to "whole
> internal address space" structures.  So the latter may better be mapped
> by single defines.  The correctness of them is easily validated and an
> incorrect value will immediatley be discovered.

I tend to agree with Scott and Detlev, too. At least from practical 
point of view

http://www.ti.com/litv/pdf/spruf98b

(attention: ~40MB) ;)

Best regards

Dirk