[U-Boot] [PATCH 06/16] Blackfin: Bf609-ezkit: implement soft switch

[Bob Liu]

On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 August 2012 04:07:45 Bob Liu wrote:
>> --- a/board/bf609-ezkit/Makefile
>> +++ b/board/bf609-ezkit/Makefile
>>
>> +COBJS-$(CONFIG_BFIN_SOFT_SWITCH)   += soft_switch.o
>
> is there any reason we *wouldn't* want to build this ?  i would just skip
> making this an option and always enable it.
>
> also, any reason for not just squashing into the initial bf609-ezkit board
> port ?  there's quite a bit of rudimentary code in bf609-ezkit.c before to
> support this.

Okay.

>
>> --- a/board/bf609-ezkit/bf609-ezkit.c
>> +++ b/board/bf609-ezkit/bf609-ezkit.c
>>
>> +/* miscellaneous platform dependent initialisations */
>> +int misc_init_r(void)
>> +{
>> +     printf("other init\n");
>
> useless display -> delete

Will be deleted.

>
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/board/bf609-ezkit/soft_switch.c
>>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BFIN_BOARD_VERSION_1_0
>> +#define SWITCH_ADDR     0x21
>> +#else
>> +#define SWITCH_ADDR     0x20
>> +#endif
>
> must this be a runtime define ?  can't you probe the slave address at runtime
> to figure out which one to use ?
>
This will be removed. We only support board version above 1.0.

> start with the address that the newest boards are using, and then fallback to
> the older ones.  this way there's no runtime penalty on newer boards, but
> older ones continue to work.
>
> shouldn't there be a new u-boot command here so people can toggle peripherals
> themselves ?  i thought that was the intention when we first discussed this
> idea with the firmware team.

I don't know whether a blackfin specific u-boot command can be accepted.
What about merge these series with the default setting first?
Because it's already a little big, let's make it simple at first.

And then we can consider to add a new command in a separated patch in future.
Thank you.

-- 
Regards,
--Bob