[U-Boot] [PATCH] 85xx: properly document MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG
Commit f7d190b1 corrected the value of MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG, but forgot to add a comment that the correct value disagrees with the 8544 reference manual. Without this comment, a developer looking at the code would get confused.
Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi timur@freescale.com --- include/asm-ppc/immap_85xx.h | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/asm-ppc/immap_85xx.h b/include/asm-ppc/immap_85xx.h index 6c81c39..920afd2 100644 --- a/include/asm-ppc/immap_85xx.h +++ b/include/asm-ppc/immap_85xx.h @@ -1579,6 +1579,7 @@ typedef struct ccsr_gur { #define MPC85xx_PORDEVSR_RIO_DEV_ID 0x00000007 uint pordbgmsr; /* 0xe0010 - POR debug mode status register */ uint pordevsr2; /* 0xe0014 - POR I/O device status regsiter 2 */ +/* The 8544 RM says this is bit 26, but it's really bit 28 */ #define MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG 0x00000080 char res1[8]; uint gpporcr; /* 0xe0020 - General-purpose POR configuration register */
Dear Timur Tabi,
In message 1224276846-18080-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com you wrote:
Commit f7d190b1 corrected the value of MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG, but forgot to add a comment that the correct value disagrees with the 8544 reference manual. Without this comment, a developer looking at the code would get confused.
Hmm... The developer looking at the code is indeed confused ;-)
+/* The 8544 RM says this is bit 26, but it's really bit 28 */ #define MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG 0x00000080
But 0x00000080 is bit 24; bit 28 would be 0x00000008 - or not?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
+/* The 8544 RM says this is bit 26, but it's really bit 28 */ #define MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG 0x00000080
But 0x00000080 is bit 24; bit 28 would be 0x00000008 - or not?
I just based my comment on the changelog of the previous patch, so that means that either the git changelog or the code for that patch is wrong. I guess that's a good reason not to use git changelogs as a substitute for code comments. Changelogs can't be edited.
The previous patch had this:
The MPC8544 RM incorrect shows the SEC_CFG bit in PORDEVSR2 as being bit 26, instead it should be bit 28. ... -#define MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG 0x00000020 +#define MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG 0x00000080
x80 is definitely bit 24. So the question for Kumar is: which is the right value for MPC85xx_PORDEVSR2_SEC_CFG: 0x80 (bit 24) or 0x08 (bit 28)?
participants (2)
-
Timur Tabi -
Wolfgang Denk