From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:41:58 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 4/5] Add fsl_iim driver
In-Reply-To: <328697618.2641928.1345553796956.JavaMail.root@advansee.com>
References: <328697618.2641928.1345553796956.JavaMail.root@advansee.com>
Message-ID: <50339026.1080607@denx.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

On 21/08/2012 14:56, Beno?t Th?baudeau wrote:
> Hi Stefano,
> 

Hi,


>> The address depends on the SOC, and is not a board configuration
>> option.
>> Should we not use IIM_BASE_ADDR ?
> 
> CONFIG_SYS_FSL_IIM_ADDR is supposed to be a board configuration option, just
> like CONFIG_SYS_I2C_BASE.

Ok, but the reason for CONFIG_SYS_I2C_BASE is that a SOC have multiple
I2C controller, but u-boot supports only one of them (up now).
Setting CONFIG_SYS_I2C_BASE we implicitely tell u-boot which controller
is active.

There is not multiple iim in the SOCs. For this reason I thought it is
not a configuration option.

> This makes things easier since on MPC this address
> comes from a struct (&((immap_t *) CONFIG_SYS_IMMR)->iim). Or we could define a
> FSL_IIM_BASE_ADDR in all supported register definition files, but that would
> mean including conditionally these files in fsl_iim.c.

I understood the point. Ok, let's see which is the Anatolji's opinion
for the PowerPC side. If he thinks it is ok, we can leave it with
CONFIG_SYS_FSL_IIM_ADDR.

Regards,
Stefano

-- 
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sbabic at denx.de
=====================================================================