On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 12:40 AM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote:
> Looking at the code I wonder why we need post_word_store() and > post_word_load() functions at all. All implementations I have found > translate into a single ioread32() resp. iowrite32() call. > Probably, due to big and little endians that the PPC code should support. On other hand, AFAIK, no one is really using a little endian notation on PPC platforms in u-boot. I am not sure however, is this a good enough reason to omit such support? Or am I missing something? >> Yes, I have seen them also. I actually thought to clean up them but do >> it in two phases - first make the post_word accessors to be common per >> arch and define them as weak so it will not break existing code. >> Afterwords - eliminate an existing redundant code. >> >> Thanks for the tips. Please let me know how do you want me to proceed >> with the patch? > > I think we should perform this cleanup in the following steps: > > 1) Move bootcount_store() and bootcount_load() to architecture > specific generic locations; this includes both the PowerPC and ARM > implementations > > 2) Move arch/blackfin/lib/post.c to post/ > 3) Eliminate post_word_store() and post_word_load() and use ioread32() > resp. iowrite32() (or equivalents) directly. > Thanks Wolfgang, it looks like I can cope with this task, of course if no one has any objections. Regards, Michael _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
