From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Josh Wu <josh.wu@atmel.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:05:21 +0800
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] arm: at91: at91sam9n12ek: add
 nandflash/spiflash/mmc/lcd support
In-Reply-To: <5146F422.8000309@gmail.com>
References: <1363342624-2939-1-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com>
	<20130318065821.566A820058D@gemini.denx.de>
	<5146E513.1010009@atmel.com> <5146F422.8000309@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <51484671.9030101@atmel.com>
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

Hi, Andreas

On 3/18/2013 7:01 PM, Andreas Bie?mann wrote:
> Dear Josh Wu,
>
> On 03/18/2013 10:57 AM, Josh Wu wrote:
>> Dear Wolfgang Denk
>>
>> Thanks for your review.  See my comment below:
>>
>> On 3/18/2013 2:58 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>>> Dear Josh Wu,
>>>
>>> In message <1363342624-2939-1-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com> you
>>> wrote:
>>>> This patch adds at91sam9n12ek support, it enables:
>>>> - dbgu
>>>> - nand with pmecc
>>>> - spi flash
>>>> - mmc
>>>> - lcd
>>> It appears you are adding support for a new board - in this case the
>>> Subject: is misleading, plrase fix.
>>>
>>> The missing entry in MAINTAINERS has already been pointed out. Please
>>> also make sure to run your patch through checkpatch - it complains for
>>> example "WARNING: line over 80 characters".  Please fix these, too.
>>>
>>> Please also make sure to keep all lists sorted. Bo shen already
>>> mentioned this for the Makefile, but this also applies to lists as
>>> here:
>>>
>>>       #elif defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9G45) ||
>>> defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9M10G45) \
>>>      -        || defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9X5)
>>>      +        || defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9X5) || defined(CONFIG_AT91SAM9N12)
>>>
>> I'll fix them in next version.
> Can we please find another identifier instead? I will not have these
> always growing list of SoC defines to distinguish between different
> access modes. Can we find some common thing which all these SoC headers
> export then? I mean something like 'AT91_CLOCK_IP_V2' in this case here.
> If we are looking forward to a single u-boot binary for different boards
> I would favor some runtime detection.

I check the document about the clock IP, I can't find the nice way to 
tell the IP difference.
The only way is use macro like cpu_is_at91samxxxx() to distinguish it.

So I prefer to keep the define this time, in future we can add 
cpu_is_at91samxxx() code for
run-time detection.

>
> Beside that I will do a full review of the patch later this day.
>
> Best regards
>
> Andreas Bie?mann

Best Regards,
Josh Wu