Dear Jens Scharsig, Am 08.02.2011 um 22:11 schrieb Jens Scharsig:
> Am 08.02.2011 16:35, schrieb Reinhard Meyer: >> Hello AT91/AVR32 users and maintainers, >> >> since relocation was introduced most ARM boards and therefore all AT91 based >> boards are >> inherently broken. >> >> We also used this "opportunity" to rework most of the AT91 include files >> mess. >> >> You can find the current efforts at git.denx.de/u-boot-atmel.git, branch >> rework110202. >> > Dear Reinhard Meyer, > > I am maintainer of eb_cpux9k2 board and if you now do the soc rework 2009. > > Currently the arm920t/at91 are not touched by your rework. > > I can try to update the at91rm9200.h to the atmel_xxxx name scheme and update > the two board in arm920t/at91 tree including drivers. > Maybe I can still send a patch this week. > > But I can't test the at91rm9200ek. that would be my part ... BTW there was some interest for at91rm9200dk around christmas ... > A second problem is, both boards use the legacy at91rm9200 usart driver. So > we could try > to use the atmel_usart in a second step. The only thing missing is the 'unsigned long get_mck_clk_rate(void)' interface. I did test this some time ago but would prefer to have some code as in arm926ejs/at91/clock.c for arm920t too. Unfortunately did not have any time to do that right. I allege that some code in arm926ejs/at91/clock.c could be shared between arm920t/at91 and arm926ejs/at91. Would that allow some at91 specific code in arm/lib? regards Andreas Bießmann _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
