Hi Reinhard,
On 08/01/2011 04:00 PM, Reinhard Meyer wrote:
Dear Hong Xu,
Rework for AT91SAM9RL SoC, makes it build again. arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9rl_matrix.h | 121 +++++---------
When I compare at91sam9rl_matrix.h to at91sam9260_matrix.h there is only one subtle difference:
at91sam9260_matrix.h:
struct at91_matrix { u32 mcfg[16]; /* Master Configuration Registers */ u32 scfg[16]; /* Slave Configuration Registers */ u32 pras[16][2]; /* Priority Assignment Slave Registers */ u32 mrcr; /* Master Remap Control Register */ u32 filler[0x06]; u32 ebicsa; /* EBI Chip Select Assignment Register */
at91sam9rl_matrix.h:
struct at91_matrix { u32 mcfg[16]; /* Master Configuration Registers */ u32 scfg[16]; /* Slave Configuration Registers */ u32 pras[16][2]; /* Priority Assignment Slave Registers */ u32 mrcr; /* Master Remap Control Register */ u32 filler[7]; u32 ebicsa; /* EBI Chip Select Assignment Register */ };
- Is it really filler[7] for the 9rl - can you verify with the data
sheet?
Confirmed. ebicsa is at 0x120 for SAM9RL, but 0x11c for SAM9260.
- It seems there is a possibility to unify all those _matrix files into
one in the future (we are not going to do this now!) ?
There are many differents among chips. For example, on SAM9260/SAM9G10
struct at91_matrix { u32 mcfg; /* Master Configuration Registers */ u32 scfg[5]; /* Slave Configuration Registers */ u32 filler[6]; u32 ebicsa; /* EBI Chip Select Assignment Register */ };
And for newer chips, some new fields are added. Can we keep current scheme and then have a look to see whether we have an elegant way to handle this? BTW, we're going to add some new chips soon.
Thanks.
BR, Eric