[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] mpc85xx: make the MxMR register in upmconfig as a parameter

[Sebastian Siewior]

* Andy Fleming | 2008-07-14 19:27:08 [-0500]:

>On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Sebastian Siewior
><bigeasy at linutronix.de> wrote:
>> The default value for the MxMR register is not always the right one.
>> This patch adds the value of MxMR register as an additional
>> parameter (plus a few defines instead of hex coded values).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy at linutronix.de>
>
>
>I'm not convinced this is the right solution.  Anytime we put a
>cpu-specific #ifdef for a function definition, we should think long
>and hard about why.  Maybe instead of an argument, we should make
>mxmr_mode a config value.  Also, unless I'm misreading this patch,
>you've broken *every* board with this patch, since there's no change
>to any of the invokers of upmconfig to supply the fourth argument.
Other sollutions are fine with me :) I did not change any board specific
code, because I did not find any users (with 85xx cpus). Still possible
that I missed some....
Another sollution might be to add upconfig_mxmr() and let upmconfig call
that function with the default value however this sounds nasty.

>Could you also explain in greater detail what you are trying to do,
>here?  My familiarity with the LBC code is fairly low.
The MxMR register specifies the mode in which the UPM is used. I have to
program two UPMs with different content of this register: in one case I
have to set UWPL & GPL4 bits in the other case the default value would
do).

If you prefer a define for this register the way we deal with BRx/ORx
than I could send a patch that does this. What should be done in case
the user is going to program UPMA but did not specify MAMR? The default
value or build error? Since this value as well as the UPM tables depend
very much on the hardware, the user should been told by his hardware
guys what to do :)

>Andy
Sebastian