Hi Matthias,
On 19.03.2014 10:25, Matthias Fuchs wrote:
This patch adds support for the new PMC440 hardware revision 1.4. The board now uses Micrel KSZ9031 phys.
Add missing i2c initialization before reading bootstrap eeprom.
Signed-off-by: Matthias Fuchs matthias.fuchs@esd.eu
board/esd/pmc440/pmc440.c | 83 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/board/esd/pmc440/pmc440.c b/board/esd/pmc440/pmc440.c index e86996c..7aee8e4 100644 --- a/board/esd/pmc440/pmc440.c +++ b/board/esd/pmc440/pmc440.c @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ struct serial_device *default_serial_console(void) /* mark scratchreg valid */ scratchreg = (scratchreg & 0xffffff00) | 0x80;
i2c_init_all();- i = bootstrap_eeprom_read(CONFIG_SYS_I2C_BOOT_EEPROM_ADDR, 0x10, buf, 4); if ((i != -1) && (buf[0] == 0x19) && (buf[1] == 0x75)) {
@@ -641,34 +643,73 @@ int is_pci_host(struct pci_controller *hose) #endif /* defined(CONFIG_PCI) */
#ifdef CONFIG_RESET_PHY_R +int pmc440_setup_ksz9031(char *devname, int phy_addr) +{
- unsigned short id1, id2;
- if (miiphy_read(devname, phy_addr, 2, &id1) ||
miiphy_read(devname, phy_addr, 3, &id2)) {printf("Phy%d: cannot read id\n", phy_addr);return -1;- }
- if ((id1 != 0x0022) || ((id2 & 0xfff0) != 0x1620)) {
printf("Phy%d: unexpected id\n", phy_addr);return -1;- }
- /* MMD 2.08: adjust tx_clk pad skew */
- miiphy_write(devname, phy_addr, 0x0d, 2);
- miiphy_write(devname, phy_addr, 0x0e, 8);
- miiphy_write(devname, phy_addr, 0x0d, 0x4002);
- miiphy_write(devname, phy_addr, 0x0e, 0xf | (0x17 << 5));
- return 0;
+} void reset_phy(void) { char *s; unsigned short val_method, val_behavior;
- /* special LED setup for NGCC/CANDES */
- if ((s = getenv("bd_type")) &&
((!strcmp(s, "ngcc")) || (!strcmp(s, "candes")))) {val_method = 0x0e0a;val_behavior = 0x0cf2;- } else {
/* PMC440 standard type */val_method = 0x0e10;val_behavior = 0x0cf0;- }
- if (gd->board_type < 4) {
/* special LED setup for NGCC/CANDES */s = getenv("bd_type");if (s && ((!strcmp(s, "ngcc")) || (!strcmp(s, "candes")))) {val_method = 0x0e0a;val_behavior = 0x0cf2;} else {/* PMC440 standard type */val_method = 0x0e10;val_behavior = 0x0cf0;}
- if (miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0", CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0001) == 0) {
miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0", CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x11, 0x0010);miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0", CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x11, val_behavior);miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0", CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x10, val_method);miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0", CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0000);- }
if (miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0",CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0001) == 0) {miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0",CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x11, 0x0010);miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0",CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x11, val_behavior);miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0",CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x10, val_method);miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth0",CONFIG_PHY_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0000);}
- if (miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1", CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0001) == 0) {
miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1", CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x11, 0x0010);miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1", CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x11, val_behavior);miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1", CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x10, val_method);miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1", CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0000);
if (miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1",CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0001) == 0) {miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1",CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x11, 0x0010);miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1",CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x11, val_behavior);miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1",CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x10, val_method);miiphy_write("ppc_4xx_eth1",CONFIG_PHY1_ADDR, 0x1f, 0x0000);}
This if () section looks very similar to the one before in this patch. Only difference is the string "ppc_4xx_eth1". Can't you move this code into a function to reduce the code size?
I know this code duplication was not introduced with this patch. But it makes sense to simplify this now for my taste.
Thanks, Stefan