[U-Boot-Users] Port for M5329EVB ColdFire MCF5329 eval board - needs network!

[Ben Warren]

On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 07:24 -0400, Robert S. Grimes wrote:
> Hi Ben,
> 
> Ben Warren wrote:
> > Yes.  Everything's polled.  No interrupt funny business.
> >   
> Thanks, that's quite comforting to know.
> > I worked a bit with a Coldfire (5328 I think) a couple of years ago and
> > remember that its Ethernet controller was very similar to the SCC/FCC/TSEC
> > controllers that you find on 68360 and PowerQUICC chips.  I have no personal
> > experience here, but I would wager that it's also pretty similar to the FEC on
> > the older MCF52x2 Coldfires.   Bottom line - this should be a cut & paste job. 
> > Look in cpu/bcf52x2/fec.c, cpu/mpc8xx/fec.c, ...
> >   
> That's what I would have thought, but I've heard this is not true, and
> I've seen some small differences myself.  I would like to know which
> ColdFire variant it is closest to, or that is is so different that I
> should not bother and start from scratch.
> 
I'm not saying they're identical, but the programming models are very
similar.  You should not have to start from scratch.  The best thing to
do is to download the datasheet for a chip that has a driver, and the
datasheet for your chip.  Compare the registers for the Ethernet
controllers.  You will see an eerie amount of similarity.  Sure, some of
the buffer descriptor bits may be different and the buffers may be in a
different memory, but that's small stuff.  

> I also grabbed Freescale's dBug sources last night, which has working
> drivers for the mcf532x.  Does anyone know if those are
> interrupt-driven?  (Yeah, I know, look at the source!  Just, if someone
> already knows...)
> > There's no point putting your BSP in the main tree until it's complete and
> > tested.  That said, you're always welcome to post code for review.  Just
> > clearly label it as such and be patient.
> >   
> Well, yes, there is a point - it would allow others to use it, or even
> better, work with me to improve it :-P .  But of course, your are right
> that it shouldn't be in the main tree until it is ready.  So if it is
> the operating convention here, I'm happy to comply. 
> 
> So what do I do?  Create a patch and post it?
> 
> Is that what all those "[PATCH]' messages are?  I had thought those were
> enhancements/fixes for existing code.
Messages with [PATCH] are exactly that - enhancements or bug fixes that
are intended for inclusion.  If you're looking for a code review, put
something like [RFC] in the subject.  There's no hard-and-fast rule,
just make it clear that you want feedback.

regards,
Ben