[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 3/7] Flat device tree support for 85xx ADS and CDS boards
* Fixed a bug where RAM size was not properly passed to Linux on 85xx in the flat device tree Patch by John Traill 17-Mar-2006
Signed-off-by: Andy Fleming afleming@freescale.com
---
diff --git a/cpu/mpc85xx/cpu.c b/cpu/mpc85xx/cpu.c index 62a3de0..3261592 100644 --- a/cpu/mpc85xx/cpu.c +++ b/cpu/mpc85xx/cpu.c @@ -253,6 +253,12 @@ ft_cpu_setup(void *blob, bd_t *bd) if (p != NULL) *p = cpu_to_be32(clock);
+ p = ft_get_prop(blob, "/memory/reg", &len); + if (p != NULL) { + *p++ = cpu_to_be32(bd->bi_memstart); + *p = cpu_to_be32(bd->bi_memsize); + } + #if defined(CONFIG_MPC85XX_TSEC1) p = ft_get_prop(blob, "/" OF_SOC "/ethernet@24000/address", &len); memcpy(p, bd->bi_enetaddr, 6);
On Mar 22, 2006, at 4:38 PM, Andy Fleming wrote:
- Fixed a bug where RAM size was not properly passed to Linux on 85xx in the flat device tree Patch by John Traill 17-Mar-2006
Signed-off-by: Andy Fleming afleming@freescale.com
Should this really go into the generic flat dev tree code?
If nothing else this shouldn't be in cpu/mpc85xx/cpu.c but in board code. You are assuming the layout of the memory/reg property will only be a single value which is necessarily true. It would be completely reasonable to have the memory/reg represent each bank of memory as a unique pair in the reg property. I believe this is what Apple does in its OF.
- kumar
diff --git a/cpu/mpc85xx/cpu.c b/cpu/mpc85xx/cpu.c index 62a3de0..3261592 100644 --- a/cpu/mpc85xx/cpu.c +++ b/cpu/mpc85xx/cpu.c @@ -253,6 +253,12 @@ ft_cpu_setup(void *blob, bd_t *bd) if (p != NULL) *p = cpu_to_be32(clock);
- p = ft_get_prop(blob, "/memory/reg", &len);
- if (p != NULL) {
*p++ = cpu_to_be32(bd->bi_memstart);*p = cpu_to_be32(bd->bi_memsize);- }
#if defined(CONFIG_MPC85XX_TSEC1) p = ft_get_prop(blob, "/" OF_SOC "/ethernet@24000/address", &len); memcpy(p, bd->bi_enetaddr, 6); -- 1.2.4
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
In message E3B2BA58-2FB1-4DAA-BC28-03091A49D02E@kernel.crashing.org you wrote:
Should this really go into the generic flat dev tree code?
I don't think so.
If nothing else this shouldn't be in cpu/mpc85xx/cpu.c but in board code. You are assuming the layout of the memory/reg property will only be a single value which is necessarily true. It would be
----^---- "not" missing here, I guess.
completely reasonable to have the memory/reg represent each bank of memory as a unique pair in the reg property. I believe this is what Apple does in its OF.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
participants (3)
-
Andy Fleming -
Kumar Gala -
Wolfgang Denk