From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Gorsulowski <Daniel.Gorsulowski@esd.eu>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:47:59 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/9 V4] add new CONFIG_AT91_LEGACY
In-Reply-To: <4B740C78.40500@windriver.com>
References: <4B5AD772.9080406@scharsoft.de>
	<4B69EE86.5090201@scharsoft.de>	<4B6D7A6F.7040403@windriver.com>
	<4B72997A.9070701@esd.eu> <4B740C78.40500@windriver.com>
Message-ID: <4B74F99F.3080400@esd.eu>
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

Tom wrote:
> Daniel Gorsulowski wrote:
>> Hello Tom,
>>
>> Tom wrote:
>>> Jens Scharsig wrote:
>>>> * add's the new temporary CONFIG_AT91_LEGACY to all board configs
>>>>  This will need for backward compatiblity, while change the SoC access
>>>>  to c structures. If CONFIG_AT91_LEGACY is defined, the deprecated
>>>>  SoC is used.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Scharsig <js_at_ng@scharsoft.de>
>>> This looks good.
>>> The only problem is the new at91 target otc570 is breaking.
>>>
>>> Please take a look at errors in otc570
>>>
>>> otc570 :
>>>
>>> at91sam9263_devices.c: In function 'at91_serial0_hw_init':
>>> at91sam9263_devices.c:40: warning: implicit declaration of function 
>>> 'at91_set_a_periph'
>>> at91sam9263_devices.c: In function 'at91_spi0_hw_init':
>>> at91sam9263_devices.c:96: warning: implicit declaration of function 
>>> 'at91_set_b_periph'
>>> at91sam9263_devices.c:116: warning: implicit declaration of function 
>>> 'at91_set_pio_output'
>>> clock.c: In function 'at91_clock_init':
>>> clock.c:160: warning: implicit declaration of function 'at91_sys_read'
>>> clock.c:160: error: 'AT91_CKGR_MCFR' undeclared (first use in this function)
>>> clock.c:160: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
>>> clock.c:160: error: for each function it appears in.)
>>>
>>> Tom
>>
>> This is caused by missing defines in include\configs\otc570.h:
>> #define CONFIG_AT91_LEGACY
>> and
>> #define CONFIG_AT91_GPIO	1
>>
>> Should I send a patch to fix this, or should I wait for Jens patches coming
>> mainline?
>>
> 
> Please send a patch.
> It should be a 2-3 liner.
> I will combine it with Jens' patchset and push them together.
> Tom
> 
You probably recognized that I did not sent a patch with CONFIG_AT91_LEGACY
support but I updated the otc570 board to new SoC access.
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2010-February/067691.html
I guess, this is the best solution.

Best regards,
Daniel Gorsulowski