[U-Boot] [PATCH] ARM AT91 new board EB+CPUx9K2

[Tom]

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