On 21/08/2012 14:56, Benoît Thébaudeau wrote:
Hi Stefano,
Hi,
The address depends on the SOC, and is not a board configuration option. Should we not use IIM_BASE_ADDR ?
CONFIG_SYS_FSL_IIM_ADDR is supposed to be a board configuration option, just like CONFIG_SYS_I2C_BASE.
Ok, but the reason for CONFIG_SYS_I2C_BASE is that a SOC have multiple I2C controller, but u-boot supports only one of them (up now). Setting CONFIG_SYS_I2C_BASE we implicitely tell u-boot which controller is active.
There is not multiple iim in the SOCs. For this reason I thought it is not a configuration option.
This makes things easier since on MPC this address comes from a struct (&((immap_t *) CONFIG_SYS_IMMR)->iim). Or we could define a FSL_IIM_BASE_ADDR in all supported register definition files, but that would mean including conditionally these files in fsl_iim.c.
I understood the point. Ok, let's see which is the Anatolji's opinion for the PowerPC side. If he thinks it is ok, we can leave it with CONFIG_SYS_FSL_IIM_ADDR.
Regards, Stefano