From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jens Scharsig <esw@bus-elektronik.de>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:41:57 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2
In-Reply-To: <20091029104729.7958119F73@gemini.denx.de>
References: <4AE6B186.9030301@bus-elektronik.de>
	<20091027110234.A0787E916D5@gemini.denx.de>
	<hc6pk5$tvs$1@ger.gmane.org>
	<20091027183506.20010E916D5@gemini.denx.de>
	<4AE81893.30506@bus-elektronik.de>
	<20091028143524.B7AD7E916D6@gemini.denx.de>
	<4AE946E7.4050404@bus-elektronik.de>
	<20091029104729.7958119F73@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <4AE99BA5.3090007@bus-elektronik.de>
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

Dear Wolfgang Denk
> Dear Jens Scharsig,
> 
 
> This is close. Of course we should drop the AT91_REG and use standard
> types instead, and "PIO_OER" is not a logal variable name either
> because it's all-capitals. So this entry should rather look like this:
> 
> 	...
> 	u32 pio_oer;
> 	...
>> and 
>>
>> #define AT91C_BASE_PIOC	((AT91PS_PIO)	0xFFFFF800) 
> 
> This is definitely deprecated.
> 
>> So the access should be 
>>
>> 	AT91PS_PIO pioa = AT91C_BASE_PIOA;
>> 	...
>> 	writel(AT91C_PA23_TXD2, &pioa->PIO_OER);
> 
> Yes, except for the incorrect variable name.
> 

By the way, the AT91RM9200.h. has hundreds of style problems.
This requires a complete revision of the AT91RM9200.h. 
I can try this, but will take a while and I can't test other
RM9200 boards.


Best regards,

Jens Scharsig