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.
--- 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
--- /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 ?
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. -mike