On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 18:30:33 -0500 Tabi Timur-B04825 B04825@freescale.com wrote:
Kim Phillips wrote:
+struct liodn_id_table sec_liodn_tbl[] = {
- SET_SEC_JR_LIODN_ENTRY(0, 129, 130),
- SET_SEC_JR_LIODN_ENTRY(1, 131, 132),
- SET_SEC_JR_LIODN_ENTRY(2, 133, 134),
- SET_SEC_JR_LIODN_ENTRY(3, 135, 136),
- SET_SEC_RTIC_LIODN_ENTRY(a, 154),
- SET_SEC_RTIC_LIODN_ENTRY(b, 155),
- SET_SEC_RTIC_LIODN_ENTRY(c, 156),
- SET_SEC_RTIC_LIODN_ENTRY(d, 157),
- SET_SEC_DECO_LIODN_ENTRY(0, 97, 98),
- SET_SEC_DECO_LIODN_ENTRY(1, 99, 100),
+};
The SEC on the P5040 has four DECOs, not two. Plus, AFAICT, these aren't the right values for these LIODN assignments.
This is the latest code from the SDK that we've been using for months. I
relevance? that doesn't mean they're accurate.
thought you reviewed these values already.
no, my patch to add the two extra DECOs was rejected because the values chosen were based on those in this patch, which were deemed incorrect by people familiar with LIODN assignment expertise (not me - I've just identified these values equal to those that were identified as wrong). Plus, if I'd had reviewed this, it would have four DECOs by now.
Kim