Yes Wolfgang,
Sorry about the sloppy little problems with my 2 patches. I need to pay more attention to coding style ...
As far as the weirdness in array index vs immap struct naming mismatch ...
+u32 default_mddrc_config[4] = { +CONFIG_SYS_MDDRC_SYS_CFG, +CONFIG_SYS_MDDRC_TIME_CFG0, +CONFIG_SYS_MDDRC_TIME_CFG1, +CONFIG_SYS_MDDRC_TIME_CFG2
+/*
- Initialize MDDRC
- put MDDRC in CMD mode and
- set the max time between refreshes to 0 during init process
- */
+out_be32(mddrc.ddr_sys_config, mddrc_config[0] | MDDRC_SYS_CFG_CMD_MASK); +out_be32(mddrc.ddr_time_config0, mddrc_config[1] & MDDRC_REFRESH_ZERO_MASK); +out_be32(mddrc.ddr_time_config1, mddrc_config[2]); +out_be32(mddrc.ddr_time_config2, mddrc_config[3]);
I cannot help it, but every time I see this I think the code is wrong. Guess I have seen too many copy & paste errors in this style. When I see "...time_config2" I also want to see "mddrc_config[2]", i. e. identical indices. We should reorder the struct.
The 4 memory config registers are in memory order and unfortunatley the register names throw you off. Some hardware guy did this in the register naming -- obviously !!! So even though the array index doesn't match the constant it does makes sense. What I think I should do is ... instead of default_mddrc_config calling my array default_mddrc_reg ... or create an independant struct with just these 4 regs and name them the same as the immap struct. Actually -- I like the later idea best .... I might do this soon and when I redo my 5125 patch incorporate it.
Very Bestest, Martha