[U-Boot] [PATCH V6 03/10] 83xx/85xx/86xx: LBC register cleanup

[Kumar Gala]

On Oct 25, 2010, at 8:34 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

> Dear Becky,
> 
> In message <1276792647-4563-4-git-send-email-beckyb at kernel.crashing.org> you wrote:
>> Currently, 83xx, 86xx, and 85xx have a lot of duplicated code
>> dedicated to defining and manipulating the LBC registers.  Merge
>> this into a single spot.
>> 
>> To do this, we have to decide on a common name for the data structure
>> that holds the lbc registers - it will now be known as fsl_lbc_t, and we
>> adopt a common name for the immap layouts that include the lbc - this was
>> previously known as either im_lbc or lbus; use the former.
>> 
>> In addition, create accessors for the BR/OR regs that use in/out_be32
>> and use those instead of the mismash of access methods currently in play.
>> 
>> I have done a successful ppc build all and tested a board or two from
>> each processor family.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Becky Bruce <beckyb at kernel.crashing.org>
>> Acked-by: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips at freescale.com>
> 
> Unfortunately it turns out that this commit breaks flash support on
> the TQM85xx boards; "saveenv" will fails like this:
> 
> 	=> save
> 	Saving Environment to Flash...
> 	Un-Protected 2 sectors
> 	Un-Protected 2 sectors
> 	Erasing Flash...
> 	.. done
> 	Erased 2 sectors
> 	Writing to Flash... Flash not Erased
> 	Protected 2 sectors
> 	Protected 2 sectors
> 
> Attempts to update the U-Boot image in flash fail with "Copy to
> Flash... Outside available Flash" etc.
> 
> Looking at your patch (which probably works on other boards) I don't
> see an immediate problem; also, the BR0/OR0, BR1/OR1 mappings look the
> same, and flash detection appears to be normale.
> 
> Do you have an ideas what I should look for?

Hmm, how about dumping all of the LBC registers and comparing before/after this change.

- k