On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:20:22 -0500 "Keith Mund" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There was a u-boot 1.1.3 patch for start.S posted on the Freescale LTIB posts concerning u-boot should go to the u-boot-users list (cc'd). > site: > http://www.bitshrine.org/gpp/u-boot-1.1.3-mpc83xx-cpu-4.patch > > The end result simply adds a line to set MBAR to match IMMRBAR. > > lis r3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ori r3, r3, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > stw r3, IMMRBAR(r4) > + mtspr MBAR, r3 > > Are these patches routinely added to the mainstream u-boot code? > > Is there any reason why this fix is not a good idea? > does setting MBAR really fix anything? MBAR doesn't live up to its name. It's a general-purpose scratch register - the hardware doesn't do anything with it. So, wrt integrity within u-boot itself, I see no point/value in setting it. If some piece of software needs temporary storage, it can set it and use it as it wishes, independent of u-boot. Kim _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
