Minkyu Kang wrote: > Dear Jean and Dirk, > >>>>>> cpu/arm_cortexa8/omap3/lowlevel_init.S | 12 ++++++++++++ >>>>>> cpu/arm_cortexa8/start.S | 14 -------------- >>>>>> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Index: u-boot-arm/cpu/arm_cortexa8/omap3/lowlevel_init.S >>>>>> =================================================================== >>>>>> --- u-boot-arm.orig/cpu/arm_cortexa8/omap3/lowlevel_init.S >>>>>> +++ u-boot-arm/cpu/arm_cortexa8/omap3/lowlevel_init.S >>>>>> @@ -181,6 +181,18 @@ lowlevel_init: >>>>>> /* back to arch calling code */ >>>>>> mov pc, lr >>>>>> +.global reset_cpu >>>>>> +reset_cpu: >>>>>> + ldr r1, rstctl @ get addr for global reset >>>>>> + @ reg >>>>>> + mov r3, #0x2 @ full reset pll + mpu >>>>>> + str r3, [r1] @ force reset >>>>>> + mov r0, r0 >>>>>> +_loop_forever: >>>>>> + b _loop_forever >>>>>> +rstctl: >>>>>> + .word PRM_RSTCTRL >>>>>> + >>>>> please move this to reset.S other wise fine >>>> Most probably your idea is that each file should only contain >>>> functionality which fits 100% (120%?) what the file name implies (?). >>>> While from general point of view this is correct, it makes no sense to >>>> create new files again and again just to follow this rule. We already >>>> created a cache.c on your request, now you request a new file reset.S >>>> for ~5 assembly lines. This new file would contain more comments (e.g. >>>> GPL header) than useful code. >>> the idea is different here >>> I want to have only code in lowlevel_init.S that can be disable by >>> CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT and do it via Makefile >> Looking at recent OMAP3 lowlevel_init.S most probably some other stuff >> has to be moved to make this work, too. So for the moment, the >> cleanest way is to move above reset_cpu to low_levelinit.S. And then >> later, after thorough investigation and testing, move the stuff needed >> for your idea to an appropriate place. This move will be consistent >> then and will avoid polluting source tree with unnecessary files until >> then. >> >> So let's do it in two steps: >> >> a) Now, move reset_cpu to lowlevel_init.S so that Riverful can go on >> with his work >> >> b) Later, move everything necessary in one consistent patch set while >> you implement your "CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT via Makefile" idea >> > > As you known riverful and me prepare the new SOC (s5pc100) patch. > so, we've been waiting for this issue to be resolved. > Please let me know how do you solve this problem. > > I think... as Wolfgang said.. it would be better make new file.
Do you like to send a patch for this? > I hope to be progressed this issue :) Me too :) Best regards Dirk _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
