Dear Alexander, Am 01.11.2010 um 12:05 schrieb Alexander Stein: > Dear Andreas, > > On Monday 01 November 2010, 11:57:14 Andreas Bießmann wrote: >> Am 01.11.2010 um 09:29 schrieb Alexander Stein: >>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Stein <alexander.st...@systec-electronic.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91cap9.h | 12 ++++++++---- >>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9260.h | 7 +++++++ >>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9261.h | 4 ++++ >>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9263.h | 3 +++ >>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9g45.h | 5 +++++ >>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9rl.h | 4 ++++ >>> 6 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9g45.h >>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9g45.h >>> @@ -51,9 +51,14 @@ >>> #define AT91SAM9G45_ID_VDEC 30 /* Video Decoder */ >>> #define AT91SAM9G45_ID_IRQ0 31 /* Advanced Interrupt Controller */ >>> >>> +#define AT91_USART0_BASE 0xfff8c000 >>> +#define AT91_USART1_BASE 0xfff90000 >>> +#define AT91_USART2_BASE 0xfff94000 >>> +#define AT91_USART3_BASE 0xfff98000 >>> #define AT91_EMAC_BASE 0xfffbc000 >>> #define AT91_SMC_BASE 0xffffe800 >>> #define AT91_MATRIX_BASE 0xffffea00 >>> +#define AT91_DBGU_BASE 0xffffee00 >>> #define AT91_PIO_BASE 0xfffff200 >>> #define AT91_PMC_BASE 0xfffffc00 >>> #define AT91_RSTC_BASE 0xfffffd00 >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9rl.h >>> b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9rl.h index 8eb0d4f..ffa6687 >>> 100644 >>> >>> >>> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9rl.h >>> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-at91/at91sam9rl.h >>> @@ -44,6 +44,10 @@ >>> #define AT91SAM9RL_ID_AC97C 24 /* AC97 Controller */ >>> #define AT91SAM9RL_ID_IRQ0 31 /* Advanced Interrupt Controller (IRQ0) > */ >>> >>> +#define AT91_US0_BASE 0xfffb0000 >>> +#define AT91_US1_BASE 0xfffb4000 >>> +#define AT91_US2_BASE 0xfffb8000 >>> +#define AT91_US3_BASE 0xfffbc000 >>> #define AT91_SDRAMC_BASE 0xffffea00 >>> #define AT91_SMC_BASE 0xffffec00 >>> #define AT91_MATRIX_BASE 0xffffee00 >> >> can we just use one naming scheme here? I dunno whether it should be >> AT91_USx or AT91_USARTx but it should be the same in any case. > > Yes, sure. I justed copied the dfine and reworded it to match the > AT91_$COMPONENT_BASE scheme. Always using USARTx is fine though.
Hmm ... I just thought they have renamed their registers in spec, but all checked datasheets use US_xx for USART register names. I also prefer USART here but Reinhard can you please give a comment? regards Andreas Bießmann _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
