* Andy Fleming | 2008-07-14 19:32:56 [-0500]:
--- a/cpu/mpc85xx/cpu.c +++ b/cpu/mpc85xx/cpu.c @@ -71,8 +71,7 @@ struct cpu_type *identify_cpu(u32 ver)
static void set_lcb_clock(uint clkdiv) {
volatile immap_t *immap = (immap_t *)CFG_IMMR;volatile ccsr_lbc_t *lbc= &immap->im_lbc;
volatile ccsr_lbc_t *lbc = (void *)(CFG_MPC85xx_LBC_ADDR); uint lcrr; lcrr = lbc->lcrr;@@ -352,8 +351,8 @@ void upmconfig (uint upm, uint * table, uint size) i++, brp += 2, orp += 2) {
/* Look for a valid BR with selected UPM */
if ((in_be32(brp) & (BR_V | upmmask)) == (BR_V | upmmask)) {dummy = (volatile u8*)(in_be32(brp) >> BR_BA_SHIFT);
if ((in_be32(brp) & (BR_V | BR_MSEL)) == (BR_V | upmmask)) {dummy = (volatile u8*)(in_be32(brp) & BR_BA);This looks pretty good to me, but I'm not very familiar with this code. Could you explain a little more deeply what is wrong with the old way, and why the new way is better? I think I understand the problem with the BA_SHIFT (actually, it alarms me, a bit), but I'm not
the first part, changes the computation of the dummy address. The spec [1] chap 14.4.4.2 referes to the dummy address as "...by a (dummy) write transaction to the relevant UPM assigned bank." The address is assigned in the relevant BRx[BA] register (bits 0-16 if not used extened addresses) and therefore shift is wrong, logical and is correct.
so sure about using MSEL on one side of the ==, and not the other.
BRx[MSEL] specifies the machines used (table 14-4, pdf page 631 in my document). MSEL is the mask while upmmask (UPMC, UPMB, or UPMB) is the content of the register. For instance, if your BR[MSEL] register would have all bits set (what is reserved / not legal) than the old compare method would match UPMA, UPMB & UPMC where is the new method would skip it.
Andy
Sebastian [1] MPC8544ERM.pdf Rev1