Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
From: Timur Tabi <[email protected]>
Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP, a stripped-down version of the MPC8349E-mITX.
--- MAINTAINERS | 1 + Makefile | 16 ++- board/mpc8349itx/config.mk | 6 +- board/mpc8349itx/mpc8349itx.c | 105 ++-------- include/configs/MPC8349ITX.h | 463 ++++++++++++++++------------------------- include/mpc83xx.h | 41 ++++ 6 files changed, 264 insertions(+), 368 deletions(-)
MAINTAINERS +1 -0
@@ -347,6 +347,7 @@ John Zhan <[email protected]> Timur Tabi <[email protected]> MPC8349E-mITX MPC8349 + MPC8349E-mITX-GP MPC8349 Kim Phillips <[email protected]>
Makefile +14 -2
@@ -1624,8 +1624,20 @@ MPC8360EMDS_SLAVE_config: unconfig fi ; @$(MKCONFIG) -a MPC8360EMDS ppc mpc83xx mpc8360emds -MPC8349ITX_config: unconfig - @$(MKCONFIG) $(@:_config=) ppc mpc83xx mpc8349itx +MPC8349ITX_config \ +MPC8349ITX_LOWBOOT_config \ +MPC8349ITXGP_config: unconfig + @mkdir -p $(obj)include + @mkdir -p $(obj)board/mpc8349itx + @CTYPE=$(subst MPC,,$(@:_config=)); \ + echo "#define CONFIG_MPC$${CTYPE}" >> $(obj)include/config.h + @if [ "$(findstring GP,$@)" ] ; then \ + echo "TEXT_BASE = 0xFE000000" >$(obj)board/mpc8349itx/config.tmp ; \ + fi + @if [ "$(findstring LOWBOOT,$@)" ] ; then \ + echo "TEXT_BASE = 0xFE000000" >$(obj)board/mpc8349itx/config.tmp ; \ + fi + @$(MKCONFIG) -a MPC8349ITX ppc mpc83xx mpc8349itx ######################################################################### ## MPC85xx Systems
board/mpc8349itx/config.mk +5 -1
@@ -21,10 +21,14 @@ # # -# MPC8349ITX +# MPC8349E-mITX and MPC8349E-mITX-GP # +sinclude $(OBJTREE)/board/$(BOARDDIR)/config.tmp + +ifndef TEXT_BASE TEXT_BASE = 0xFEF00000 +endif ifneq ($(OBJTREE),$(SRCTREE)) # We are building u-boot in a separate directory, use generated
board/mpc8349itx/mpc8349itx.c +19 -86
142 lines not on this page · raw message
include/configs/MPC8349ITX.h +184 -279
704 lines not on this page · raw message
include/mpc83xx.h +41 -0
47 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
1.4.4
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
Quoted 5 lines · On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:09:45 -0600 timur at freescale.com wrote:
From: Timur Tabi <[email protected]>
Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP, a stripped-down version of the MPC8349E-mITX.
Quoted 8 lines
Signed-off-by Timur Tabi <[email protected]>--- MAINTAINERS | 1 + Makefile | 16 ++- board/mpc8349itx/config.mk | 6 +- board/mpc8349itx/mpc8349itx.c | 105 ++-------- include/configs/MPC8349ITX.h | 463 ++++++++++++++++------------------------- include/mpc83xx.h | 41 ++++
Timur, this looks good except new boards should at least have their own config file; I have a problem with multiple ifdef CONFIG_MPC8349ITX checks in MPC8349ITX.h.
Also, there are unrelated modifications in this patch - please respin.
Thanks,
Kim
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
Quoted 17 lines · Kim Phillips
Quoted 5 lines · On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:09:45 -0600 timur at freescale.com wrote:
From: Timur Tabi <[email protected]>
Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP, a stripped-down version of the MPC8349E-mITX.
Quoted 8 lines
Signed-off-by Timur Tabi <[email protected]>--- MAINTAINERS | 1 + Makefile | 16 ++- board/mpc8349itx/config.mk | 6 +- board/mpc8349itx/mpc8349itx.c | 105 ++-------- include/configs/MPC8349ITX.h | 463 ++++++++++++++++------------------------- include/mpc83xx.h | 41 ++++
Quoted 2 lines
Timur, this looks good except new boards should at least have their own config file; I have a problem with multiple ifdef
CONFIG_MPC8349ITXchecks inMPC8349ITX.h.
The ITX and the ITX-GP are basically the same board, except the ITX has a few extra peripherals. It doesn't make sense to have separate config files.
As for the ifdefs, there are only three - one that defines the CF card that only the ITX has, one for the flash sizes, and another for the command prompt. I could technically move these into the Makefile, eliminating any ifdefs from the header file. Do you want me to do that?
Quoted 1 line
Also, there are unrelated modifications in this patch - please respin.
Could you be more specific? The cleanups to the header files and the source files are for the purpose of improving the ability of the same code to support two boards.
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
Quoted 30 lines · Timur Tabi
Quoted 18 lines · Kim Phillips
Quoted 6 lines · On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:09:45 -0600 timur at freescale.com wrote:
From: Timur Tabi <[email protected]>
Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP, a stripped-down version of the MPC8349E-mITX.
Signed-off-by Timur Tabi <[email protected]>Quoted 8 lines
--- MAINTAINERS | 1 + Makefile | 16 ++- board/mpc8349itx/config.mk | 6 +- board/mpc8349itx/mpc8349itx.c | 105 ++-------- include/configs/MPC8349ITX.h | 463 +++++++++++++++ +------------------------- include/mpc83xx.h | 41 ++++Quoted 4 lines
Timur, this looks good except new boards should at least have their own config file;
I have a problem with multiple ifdefCONFIG_MPC8349ITXchecks inMPC8349ITX.h.The ITX and the ITX-GP are basically the same board, except the ITX has
a few extra peripherals. It doesn't make sense to have separate config
files.
Quoted 5 lines
As for the ifdefs, there are only three - one that defines the CF card that only the ITX has, one for the flash sizes, and another for the command prompt. I could technically move these into the
Makefile, eliminating any ifdefs from the header file. Do you want me to do that?
Since they are different physical boards they should have different <config>.h, that rule's been pretty standard in u-boot.
- k
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
Quoted 3 lines · In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
Since they are different physical boards they should have different <config>.h, that rule's been pretty standard in u-boot.
No, not at all. We have many similar boards share one configuration file - especially in the case of modules that can be used on different carrier boards.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Signature · 6 lines
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de Romulan women are not like Vulcan females. We are not dedicated to pure logic and the sterility of non-emotion. -- Romulan Commander, "The Enterprise Incident", stardate 5027.3
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
Quoted 9 lines · On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:46:54 +0100 Wolfgang Denk <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 3 lines · In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
Since they are different physical boards they should have different <config>.h, that rule's been pretty standard in u-boot.
No, not at all. We have many similar boards share one configuration file - especially in the case of modules that can be used on different carrier boards.
I didn't see any that had the same config behaviour as this patch does (ifdeffing itself). In any case, the ITX and ITX-GP do not have any modular properties. Plus, there are more similarly 'fixed' boards coming that are similar, but in different ways, to the ITX and the ITX-GP.
My reluctance is stemmed from the prediction of the growing number of ifdefs in the config file. Perhaps the best thing to do here is have the main config file have a single set of ifdefs for each individual board, and include that board's delta config from a sub-board config file. All common elements remain in the main config file, and if a board define is not matched, #error out.
Kim
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
Quoted 11 lines · Kim Phillips
Quoted 7 lines · On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:46:54 +0100 Wolfgang Denk <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 2 lines · In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
Since they are different physical boards they should have different <config>.h, that rule's been pretty standard in u-boot.
No, not at all. We have many similar boards share one configuration file - especially in the case of modules that can be used on different carrier boards.
I didn't see any that had the same config behaviour as this patch does (ifdeffing itself).
Some boards solve this problem by specifying the options in the Makefile. However, Wolfgang says he doesn't like this.
Quoted 1 line
My reluctance is stemmed from the prediction of the growing number of ifdefs in the config file. Perhaps the best thing to do here is have the main config file have a single set of ifdefs for each individual board, and include that board's delta config from a sub-board config file. All common elements remain in the main config file, and if a board define is not matched, #error out.
I presume you mean board-specific ifdefs in a config file, and not just any ifdefs. Frankly, I don't think 3 board-specific ifdefs is that many.
Technically speaking, the config file for the ITX will work on the ITX-GP, but you'll have to deal with:
1) A warning stating that flash bank #2 is missing
2) Loading support for compact flash and IDE, and a message saying that IDE times out.
3) A command prompt that says "MPC8349E-mITX" instead of "MPC8349E-mITX-GP"
I could modify the header file to make it somewhat more generic, but I can't completely eliminate "#ifdef CONFIG_MPC8349ITX" unless I move some config stuff to the Makefile, by adding something like this to the make rule:
[if ITX and not ITX-GP] echo "#define CONFIG_COMPACT_FLASH" >> $(obj)include/config.h echo "#define CFG_MAX_FLASH_BANKS 2" >> $(obj)include/config.h echo '#define CFG_PROMPT "MPC8349E-mITX> "' >> $(obj)include/config.h
And then use this code in the config file to handle the flash configuration:
#define CFG_FLASH_SIZE (CFG_MAX_FLASH_BANKS * 8)
#define CFG_MAX_FLASH_BANKS (2 + CFG_MAX_FLASH_BANKS)
#define CFG_FLASH_BANKS_LIST {CFG_FLASH_BASE, CFG_FLASH_BASE + 0x800000}
This produces this warning when compiling cfi_flash.c, however:
cfi_flash.c:167: warning: excess elements in array initializer cfi_flash.c:167: warning: (near initialization for 'bank_base')
To fix that, we could modify cfi_flash.c like this:
-static ulong bank_base[CFG_MAX_FLASH_BANKS] = CFG_FLASH_BANKS_LIST; +static ulong bank_base[] = CFG_FLASH_BANKS_LIST;
Again, Wolfgang says he doesn't like options in Makefiles, although personally I don't have a problem with that. I just mention the above for purposes of discussion.
Signature · 2 lines
Timur Tabi Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
Quoted 3 lines · In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
Some boards solve this problem by specifying the options in the
Makefile. However, Wolfgang says he doesn't like this.
It depends. There once was a time, when I thought something like the TQM82xx code was a good thing. Actually it was an improvement over what we had before that. But I've learned a lesson or two, and today I would not accept such a mess again.
Onthe other hand, if you just have to switch between lowboot and highboot configurations, or between configurations with LCD or without, then a bit of configuration selection in the Makefile is IMHO ok. Just don't write pages of code, please.
Quoted 2 lines
I presume you mean board-specific ifdefs in a config file, and not just any ifdefs. Frankly, I don't think 3 board-specific ifdefs is that many.
Neither do I. And it's definitely better than having 2 config files which are 98% copy & paste and otherwise just a PITA to keep in sync.
Quoted 6 lines
to the
Makefile, by adding something like this to the make rule:[if ITX and not ITX-GP] echo "#define CONFIG_COMPACT_FLASH" >> $(obj)include/config.h echo "#define CFG_MAX_FLASH_BANKS 2" >> $(obj)include/config.h echo '#define CFG_PROMPT "MPC8349E-mITX> "' >> $(obj)include/config.h
No. Please don't write code in the Makefile, just select the right configuration name, and that's it.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Signature · 5 lines
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de He had quite a powerful intellect, but it was as powerful like a locomotive, and ran on rails and was therefore almost impossible to steer. - Terry Pratchett, _Lords and Ladies_
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
Quoted 7 lines · Wolfgang Denk
Quoted 4 lines
[if ITX and not ITX-GP] echo "#define CONFIG_COMPACT_FLASH" >> $(obj)include/config.h echo "#define CFG_MAX_FLASH_BANKS 2" >> $(obj)include/config.h echo '#define CFG_PROMPT "MPC8349E-mITX> "' >> $(obj)include/config.hNo. Please don't write code in the
Makefile, just select the right configuration name, and that's it.
The patch currently does this:
MPC8349ITX_config \MPC8349ITX_LOWBOOT_config \MPC8349ITXGP_config: unconfig
@mkdir -p $(obj)include
@mkdir -p $(obj)board/mpc8349itx
@CTYPE=$(subst MPC,,$(@:_config=)); \
echo "#define CONFIG_MPC$${CTYPE}" >> $(obj)include/config.h
@if [ "$(findstring GP,$@)" ] ; then \
echo "TEXT_BASE = 0xFE000000" >$(obj)board/mpc8349itx/config.tmp ; \
fi
@if [ "$(findstring LOWBOOT,$@)" ] ; then \
echo "TEXT_BASE = 0xFE000000" >$(obj)board/mpc8349itx/config.tmp ; \
fi
@$(MKCONFIG) -a MPC8349ITX ppc mpc83xx mpc8349itxIs this bad? Should I have done this instead:
MPC8349ITX_config: unconfig
@mkdir -p $(obj)include @mkdir -p $(obj)board/mpc8349itx @echo "#define CONFIG_MPC8349ITX" >> $(obj)include/config.h @$(MKCONFIG) -a MPC8349ITX ppc mpc83xx mpc8349itx
MPC8349ITX_LOWBOOT_config: unconfig
@mkdir -p $(obj)include @mkdir -p $(obj)board/mpc8349itx @echo "#define CONFIG_MPC8349ITX" >> $(obj)include/config.h @echo "TEXT_BASE = 0xFE000000" >$(obj)board/mpc8349itx/config.tmp
@$(MKCONFIG) -a MPC8349ITX ppc mpc83xx mpc8349itx
MPC8349ITXGP_config: unconfig
@mkdir -p $(obj)include @mkdir -p $(obj)board/mpc8349itx @echo "#define CONFIG_MPC8349ITXGP" >> $(obj)include/config.h @echo "TEXT_BASE = 0xFE000000" >$(obj)board/mpc8349itx/config.tmp
@$(MKCONFIG) -a MPC8349ITX ppc mpc83xx mpc8349itx
Signature · 2 lines
Timur Tabi Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
Quoted 6 lines · In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
The patch currently does this:
MPC8349ITX_config\MPC8349ITX_LOWBOOT_config\MPC8349ITXGP_config: unconfig
Quoted 11 lines
@mkdir -p $(obj)include
@mkdir -p $(obj)board/mpc8349itx
@CTYPE=$(subst MPC,,$(@:_config=)); \
echo "#define CONFIG_MPC$${CTYPE}" >> $(obj)include/config.h
@if [ "$(findstring GP,$@)" ] ; then \
echo "TEXT_BASE = 0xFE000000" >$(obj)board/mpc8349itx/config.tmp ; \
fi
@if [ "$(findstring LOWBOOT,$@)" ] ; then \
echo "TEXT_BASE = 0xFE000000" >$(obj)board/mpc8349itx/config.tmp ; \
fi
@$(MKCONFIG) -a MPC8349ITX ppc mpc83xx mpc8349itxI would not reject such a patch. It looks resonable to me. [You could get rid of the CTYPE thingy which would save one line.]
Quoted 1 line
Is this bad? Should I have done this instead:
No, that would be definitely worse.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Signature · 4 lines
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de Generally speaking, there are other ways to accomplish whatever it is that you think you need ... - Doug Gwyn
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
Quoted 18 lines · Wolfgang Denk
Quoted 5 lines · In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
The patch currently does this:
MPC8349ITX_config\MPC8349ITX_LOWBOOT_config\MPC8349ITXGP_config: unconfigQuoted 11 lines
@mkdir -p $(obj)include @mkdir -p $(obj)board/mpc8349itx @CTYPE=$(subst MPC,,$(@:_config=)); \ echo "#define CONFIG_MPC$${CTYPE}" >> $(obj)include/config.h @if [ "$(findstring GP,$@)" ] ; then \ echo "TEXT_BASE = 0xFE000000" >$(obj)board/mpc8349itx/config.tmp ; \ fi @if [ "$(findstring LOWBOOT,$@)" ] ; then \ echo "TEXT_BASE = 0xFE000000" >$(obj)board/mpc8349itx/config.tmp ; \ fi @$(MKCONFIG) -a MPC8349ITX ppc mpc83xx mpc8349itx
Quoted 2 lines
I would not reject such a patch. It looks resonable to me. [You could get rid of the CTYPE thingy which would save one line.]
How else would I do this, then?
echo "#define CONFIG_MPC$${CTYPE}" >> $(obj)include/config.h
^^^^^^^^^Signature · 2 lines
Timur Tabi Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
Quoted 19 lines · In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
Quoted 18 lines · Wolfgang Denk
Quoted 16 lines · In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
The patch currently does this:
MPC8349ITX_config\MPC8349ITX_LOWBOOT_config\MPC8349ITXGP_config: unconfig@mkdir -p $(obj)include @mkdir -p $(obj)board/mpc8349itx @CTYPE=$(subst MPC,,$(@:_config=)); \ echo "#define CONFIG_MPC$${CTYPE}" >> $(obj)include/config.h @if [ "$(findstring GP,$@)" ] ; then \ echo "TEXT_BASE = 0xFE000000" >$(obj)board/mpc8349itx/config.tmp ; \ fi @if [ "$(findstring LOWBOOT,$@)" ] ; then \ echo "TEXT_BASE = 0xFE000000" >$(obj)board/mpc8349itx/config.tmp ; \ fi @$(MKCONFIG) -a MPC8349ITX ppc mpc83xx mpc8349itx
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 2 lines
I would not reject such a patch. It looks resonable to me. [You could get rid of the CTYPE thingy which would save one line.]
How else would I do this, then?
echo "#define CONFIG_MPC$${CTYPE}" >> $(obj)include/config.h ^^^^^^^^^
echo "#define CONFIG_$(@:_config=)" >> $(obj)include/config.h
?
I mean, you define a variable which is just used once, so insert the value directly. And then, why strip the "MPC" part just to add it again?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Signature · 4 lines
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de Some programming languages manage to absorb change, but withstand progress. -- Epigrams in Programming, ACM SIGPLAN Sept. 1982
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
In reply to Timur TabiHi Timur,
Quoted 7 lines · Timur Tabi
I presume you mean board-specific ifdefs in a config file, and not just any ifdefs. Frankly, I don't think 3 board-specific ifdefs is that many.
Technically speaking, the config file for the ITX will work on the ITX-GP, but you'll have to deal with:
1) A warning stating that flash bank #2 is missing
Please check the CFG_FLASH_QUIET_TEST config option. The README states:
- CFG_FLASH_QUIET_TEST
If this option is defined, the common CFI flash doesn't print it's warning upon not recognized FLASH banks. This is useful, if some of the configured banks are only optionally available.
Best regards,
Stefan
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
In reply to Kim PhillipsQuoted 3 lines · In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
My reluctance is stemmed from the prediction of the growing number of ifdefs in the config file. Perhaps the best thing to do here is have the main config file have a single set of ifdefs for each individual board, and include that board's delta config
from a sub-board config file. All common elements remain in the main config file, and if a board define is not matched, #error out.
Distributing the necessary configuration information for one board over several files does not improve anything. On contrary, it just makes it more difficult to get an overview of which configuration is doing what.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Signature · 4 lines
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de Documentation is like sex: when it is good, it is very, very good; and when it is bad, it is better than nothing. - Dick Brandon
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
In reply to Timur TabiQuoted 4 lines · In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
The ITX and the ITX-GP are basically the same board, except the ITX has a few extra peripherals. It doesn't make sense to have separate config files.
Agreed.
Quoted 2 lines
As for the ifdefs, there are only three - one that defines the CF card that only the ITX has, one for the flash sizes, and another for the
Why do you need to define the flash sizes? They should get auto-detected.
Quoted 2 lines
command prompt. I could technically move these into the
Makefile, eliminating any ifdefs from the header file. Do you want me to do that?
No, please keep the Makefile simple.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Signature · 4 lines
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de Actual war is a very messy business. Very, very messy business. -- Kirk, "A Taste of Armageddon", stardate 3193.0
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
Quoted 5 lines · Wolfgang Denk
Quoted 2 lines
As for the ifdefs, there are only three - one that defines the CF card that only the ITX has, one for the flash sizes, and another for the
Why do you need to define the flash sizes? They should get auto-detected.
The ITX has two 8MB flash chips, whereas the ITX-GP has one. My understanding is that U-Boot can't find the 2nd flash chip unless it's told about it via CFG_FLASH_BANKS_LIST.
Signature · 2 lines
Timur Tabi Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
Quoted 7 lines · In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
Quoted 3 lines
Why do you need to define the flash sizes? They should get auto-detected.
The ITX has two 8MB flash chips, whereas the ITX-GP has one. My understanding is that U-Boot can't find the 2nd flash chip unless it's told about it via
CFG_FLASH_BANKS_LIST.
Configure to have always 2 banks then; one board will then report one bank missing.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Signature · 6 lines
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de There is an old custom among my people. When a woman saves a man's life, he is grateful. -- Nona, the Kanuto which woman, "A Private Little War", stardate 4211.8.
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
Quoted 2 lines · Wolfgang Denk
Configure to have always 2 banks then; one board will then report one bank missing.
I'll try it, but does it really matter? I already need to differentiate between the boards because the ITX-GP is lowboot and the ITX is highboot, and so the HRCWs are different.
Besides, isn't it bad trying to do I/O from memory that doesn't exist? Won't it cause an exception?
Signature · 2 lines
Timur Tabi Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale
PATCH 1/1 Add support for the MPC8349E-mITX-GP
Quoted 4 lines · In message <[email protected]> you wrote:
I'll try it, but does it really matter? I already need to differentiate between the boards because the ITX-GP is lowboot and the ITX is highboot, and so the HRCWs are different.
No, it does not really matter then. Also, my concern was more about your statement to have different flash _sizes_ - these should get autoadjusted. Number of banks is a bit different.
Quoted 2 lines
Besides, isn't it bad trying to do I/O from memory that doesn't exist? Won't it cause an exception?
If the memory is mapped, no.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Signature · 4 lines
Software Engineering: Embedded and Realtime Systems, Embedded Linux Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de Never worry about theory as long as the machinery does what it's supposed to do. - R. A. Heinlein