On Mar 30, 2012, at 9:04 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 03/29/2012 03:10 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > >>> - include/configs/P1_P2_RDB.h >>> >>> #ifndef CONFIG_NAND_SPL >>> #define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE 0xffa00000 >>> #ifdef CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT >>> #define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_PHYS 0xfffa00000ull >>> #else >>> #define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_PHYS CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE >>> #endif >>> #else >>> #define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE 0xfff00000 >>> #ifdef CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT >>> #define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_PHYS 0xffff00000ull >>> #else >>> #define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_PHYS CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE >>> #endif >>> #endif >>> >>> - include/configs/p1_p2_rdb_pc.h >>> >>> #ifdef CONFIG_NAND_FSL_ELBC >>> #define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE 0xff800000 >>> #ifdef CONFIG_PHYS_64BIT >>> #define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_PHYS 0xfff800000ull >>> #else >>> #define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE_PHYS CONFIG_SYS_NAND_BASE >>> #endif >>> >> >> There are two (well 3 since rdb-pc has both 32b& 36b) in the tree now: >> >> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p2020rdb.dts >> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p2020rdb-pc_32b.dts >> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p2020rdb-pc_36b.dts > > Okay. So I assume that one has the proper NAND address and my patch > should be reverted then. Do want a patch from me for that?
Yes, please do. >>> Since both system have the same SoC and the NAND_SPL is always linked >>> against 0xfff00000 I don't see anything wrong to relocate the NAND CS >>> later to 0xff800000 (or to 0xffa00000) and having it consistent among >>> both configs. > > what about this thing? Should leave it as it or move to the same > location? Since I have no HW *I* would prefer not to touch it :) Hmm, that implies a u-boot change, right? - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
