From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:57:20 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2 In-Reply-To: <4AE99BA5.3090007@bus-elektronik.de> References: <4AE6B186.9030301@bus-elektronik.de> <20091027110234.A0787E916D5@gemini.denx.de> <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> <4AE99BA5.3090007@bus-elektronik.de> Message-ID: <4AE99F40.4000107@windriver.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Jens Scharsig wrote: > 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. > Please limit your changes to what you can test. Tom > > Best regards, > > Jens Scharsig > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot at lists.denx.de > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot