[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 08/13] SPARC: added SMC91111 driver in and out macros for LEON processors.

[Ben Warren]

Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
> Hello Wolfgang,
>
> This patch makes SPARC/LEON processors able to read and write
> to the SMC91111 chip using the chip external I/O bus of the memory
> controller. This patchs defines the standard in and out macros
> expected by the SMC9111 driver.
>
> To access that I/O bus one must set up the memory controller
> (MCTRL or FTMCTRL) correctly. It is assumed that the user sets
> up this correctly when the other MCTRL parameters are set up. It
> can be set up from the board configuration header file.
>
> This patch is also available at ftp://ftp.gaisler.com/gaisler.com/u-boot/patches.
>
> Best Regards,
> Daniel Hellstrom
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Hellstrom <daniel at gaisler.com>
> ---
>  drivers/net/smc91111.h |   74 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  1 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/smc91111.h b/drivers/net/smc91111.h
> index 8dcbb3e..6c4af64 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/smc91111.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/smc91111.h
> @@ -176,7 +176,79 @@ typedef unsigned long int 		dword;
>  					};  \
>  				})
>  
> -#else /* if not CONFIG_PXA250 */
> +#elif defined(CONFIG_LEON)	/* if not CONFIG_PXA250 */
> +
> +#define SMC_LEON_SWAP16(_x_)                                        \
> +    ({ word _x = (_x_); ((_x << 8) | (_x >> 8)); })
> +
> +#define SMC_LEON_SWAP32(_x_)                        \
> +    ({ dword _x = (_x_);                   \
> +       ((_x << 24) |                            \
> +       ((0x0000FF00UL & _x) <<  8) |            \
> +       ((0x00FF0000UL & _x) >>  8) |            \
> +       (_x  >> 24)); })
> +
> +#define	SMC_inl(r) 	(SMC_LEON_SWAP32((*(volatile dword *)(SMC_BASE_ADDRESS+((r)<<0)))))
> +#define	SMC_inl_nosw(r) 	((*(volatile dword *)(SMC_BASE_ADDRESS+((r)<<0))))
> +#define	SMC_inw(r) 	(SMC_LEON_SWAP16((*(volatile word *)(SMC_BASE_ADDRESS+((r)<<0)))))
> +#define	SMC_inw_nosw(r) 	((*(volatile word *)(SMC_BASE_ADDRESS+((r)<<0))))
> +#define SMC_inb(p)	({ \
> +	word ___v = SMC_inw((p) & ~1); \
> +	if (p & 1) ___v >>= 8; \
> +	else ___v &= 0xff; \
> +	___v; })
> +#define	SMC_outl(d,r)	(*(volatile dword *)(SMC_BASE_ADDRESS+((r)<<0))=SMC_LEON_SWAP32(d))
> +#define	SMC_outl_nosw(d,r)	(*(volatile dword *)(SMC_BASE_ADDRESS+((r)<<0))=(d))
> +#define	SMC_outw(d,r)	(*(volatile word *)(SMC_BASE_ADDRESS+((r)<<0))=SMC_LEON_SWAP16(d))
> +#define	SMC_outw_nosw(d,r)	(*(volatile word *)(SMC_BASE_ADDRESS+((r)<<0))=(d))
> +#define	SMC_outb(d,r)	({	word __d = (byte)(d);  \
> +				word __w = SMC_inw((r)&~1);  \
> +				__w &= ((r)&1) ? 0x00FF : 0xFF00;  \
> +				__w |= ((r)&1) ? __d<<8 : __d;  \
> +				SMC_outw(__w,(r)&~1);  \
> +			})
> +#define SMC_outsl(r,b,l)	({	int __i; \
> +					dword *__b2; \
> +					__b2 = (dword *) b; \
> +					for (__i = 0; __i < l; __i++) { \
> +					    SMC_outl_nosw( *(__b2 + __i), r); \
> +					} \
> +				})
> +#define SMC_outsw(r,b,l)	({	int __i; \
> +					word *__b2; \
> +					__b2 = (word *) b; \
> +					for (__i = 0; __i < l; __i++) { \
> +					    SMC_outw_nosw( *(__b2 + __i), r); \
> +					} \
> +				})
> +#define SMC_insl(r,b,l) 	({	int __i ;  \
> +					dword *__b2;  \
> +			    		__b2 = (dword *) b;  \
> +			    		for (__i = 0; __i < l; __i++) {  \
> +					  *(__b2 + __i) = SMC_inl_nosw(r);  \
> +					  SMC_inl(0);  \
> +					};  \
> +				})
> +
> +#define SMC_insw(r,b,l) 	({	int __i ;  \
> +					word *__b2;  \
> +			    		__b2 = (word *) b;  \
> +			    		for (__i = 0; __i < l; __i++) {  \
> +					  *(__b2 + __i) = SMC_inw_nosw(r);  \
> +					  SMC_inw(0);  \
> +					};  \
> +				})
> +
> +#define SMC_insb(r,b,l) 	({	int __i ;  \
> +					byte *__b2;  \
> +			    		__b2 = (byte *) b;  \
> +			    		for (__i = 0; __i < l; __i++) {  \
> +					  *(__b2 + __i) = SMC_inb(r);  \
> +					  SMC_inb(0);  \
> +					};  \
> +				})
> +
> +#else				/* if not CONFIG_PXA250 and not CONFIG_LEON */
>  
>  #ifndef CONFIG_SMC_USE_IOFUNCS /* these macros don't work on some boards */
>  /*
>   
I haven't looked at how all the funky macros in this patch are called, 
but it's generally considered good form to wrap multi-line macros with 
do {...} while(0) in order to avoid compiler issues. I'll NAK the patch 
for now based on this.

regards,
Ben