On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 05:39:32PM +0100, Matthijs van Duin wrote: >> On 19 January 2018 at 16:41, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >> > OK. For v2, if you can convert CONFIG_SYS_NS16550_MEM32 to Kconfig as >> > well I'd appreciate it. >> >> I'm not hugely comfortable doing that, since that would affect even >> more targets. To be honest, I don't understand why it even exists as a >> separate var instead of just testing whether >> CONFIG_SYS_NS16550_REG_SIZE is 4 or -4. Are there actually some crazy >> targets that allocate 4 bytes per register yet fail if you use 32-bit >> access? > > It's most likely a case that just wasn't cleaned up. If you want to > correct things by dropping CONFIG_SYS_NS16550_MEM32 and checking > CONFIG_SYS_NS16550_REG_SIZE instead, that's fine. > >> Would you object hugely to me just implicitly setting >> CONFIG_SYS_NS16550_MEM32 in ns16550.h for the c6x uart variant? I >> think it makes a lot of sense to do so, since in that case the driver >> itself explicitly depends on being able to write a value that doesn't >> fit in a byte. > > Well, it's just SOC_DA8XX that isn't doing it today, and we need to > migrate that CONFIG symbol or do away with it.
If you want to CC me on the next round of the patch, I can test it on a DA850-EVM. adam > > -- > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot@lists.denx.de > https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
