[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Added support for multiple serial for MPC8XX (resubmit)

[Stefano Babic]

On Friday 15 June 2007 21:38, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>    #if defined(CONFIG_8xx_CONS_SMC2) && (defined(CONFIG_MPC823) ||
> defined(CONFIG_MPC850))
> 	volatile iop8xx_t *ip = (iop8xx_t *)&(im->im_ioport);
>    #endif

I see, on MPC823 the port for SMC2 is not configured if both SMCs are used :(.

> you could simple write:
>
>    if (smc_index == SMC1_INDEX) {
> 	/* Use Port B for SMC1 instead of other functions.
> 	*/
> 	cp->cp_pbpar |=  0x000000c0;
> 	cp->cp_pbdir &= ~0x000000c0;
> 	cp->cp_pbodr &= ~0x000000c0;
>    }

You are right, but my intention was to assure the highest backward 
compatibility, because I am aware that a lot of boards are currently using 
this driver. Changes as you suggest have a (small) impact on the runtime 
behavior, because, to clean up the code, parameter values as 
PROFF_SMC,CPM_CR_CH_SMC must be taken from the structure I fill in. I could 
simplify other parts of code as allocating the buffers from DPRAM from:

#ifdef CONFIG_SERIAL_MULTI
	dpaddr=ALIGN(CPM_SERIAL_BASE+(sizeof(cbd_t)*2+2)*smc_index,8);
#else 
	dpaddr=CPM_SERIAL_BASE;
#endif

into simply:
	dpaddr=ALIGN(CPM_SERIAL_BASE+(sizeof(cbd_t)*2+2)*smc_index,8);

Theoretically, no problem, there is enough place in DPRAM to do this. To be 
really sure, it should be tested on all boards :(.
I know, we are talking about small changes but I gave compatibility the 
highest priority doing this job.

Now if CONFIG_SERIAL_MULTI is not set, we have (quite) the same driver as in 
the past.

However, I agree with you that this makes code less readable :(.

stefano

-- 
=====================================================================
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: +49-8142-66989-0 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80  Email: office at denx.de
=====================================================================