[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 6/6] arm: mvf600: Add basic support for Vybrid MVF600TWR board

[Benoît Thébaudeau]

Hi Stefano, Alison,

On Friday, May 17, 2013 6:07:43 PM, Stefano Babic wrote:
> On 17/05/2013 17:20, Wang Huan-B18965 wrote:
> > Hi, Stefano,
> > 
> 
> Hi Alison,
> 
> >>> +void setup_iomux_ddr(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	imx_iomux_v3_setup_multiple_pads(ddr_pads, ARRAY_SIZE(ddr_pads)); }
> >>> +
> >>> +void ddr_phy_init(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	struct ddrmr_regs *ddrmr = (struct ddrmr_regs *)DDR_BASE_ADDR;
> >>> +
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_DQ_TIMING, &ddrmr->phy[0]);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_DQ_TIMING, &ddrmr->phy[16]);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_DQ_TIMING, &ddrmr->phy[32]);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_DQ_TIMING, &ddrmr->phy[48]);
> >>> +
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_DQS_TIMING, &ddrmr->phy[1]);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_DQS_TIMING, &ddrmr->phy[17]);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_DQS_TIMING, &ddrmr->phy[33]);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_DQS_TIMING, &ddrmr->phy[49]);
> >>> +
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_CTRL, &ddrmr->phy[2]);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_CTRL, &ddrmr->phy[18]);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_CTRL, &ddrmr->phy[34]);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_CTRL, &ddrmr->phy[50]);
> >>> +
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_MASTER_CTRL, &ddrmr->phy[3]);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_MASTER_CTRL, &ddrmr->phy[19]);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_MASTER_CTRL, &ddrmr->phy[35]);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_MASTER_CTRL, &ddrmr->phy[51]);
> >>> +
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_SLAVE_CTRL, &ddrmr->phy[4]);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_SLAVE_CTRL, &ddrmr->phy[20]);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_SLAVE_CTRL, &ddrmr->phy[36]);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(PHY_SLAVE_CTRL, &ddrmr->phy[52]);
> >>> +
> >>
> >> Without reference manual, it is difficult to judge. But it is surely
> >> difficult to read. What does hide under the magic index of the ddrmr
> >> stucture ?
> > [Alison Wang] In the reference manual, the registers are named as phy00,
> > phy01, phy02.... cr00, cr01, cr02....
> > I think there may be some confusion if I rename the registers.
> 
> Then the names of the registers are ok - I wanted only to be sure that
> what we read here is what we can find in the RM.
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > BTW, what's your suggestions about the other two patches, [PATCH v2 4/6]
> > and [PATCH v2 5/6]?
> > Thanks.
> 
> Patches 4/6 and 5/6 are ok for me.

And what about my comments regarding 2/6 and 3/6? There has been no reply for
that so far.

Best regards,
Benoît