On Thu, 14 Jul 2011 14:14:52 +0200 Stefano Babic <sba...@denx.de> wrote:
> On 07/14/2011 01:56 PM, David Jander wrote: > > This check was broken. r3 does not contain the silicon revision anymore, so > > we need to reload it. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Jander <da...@protonic.nl> > > --- > > Hi David, > > > arch/arm/cpu/armv7/mx5/lowlevel_init.S | 4 +++- > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/mx5/lowlevel_init.S > > b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/mx5/lowlevel_init.S index ee4150d..6bb398f 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/mx5/lowlevel_init.S > > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/mx5/lowlevel_init.S > > @@ -39,7 +39,9 @@ > > orr r0, r0, #(1 << 23) /* disable write allocate > > combine */ orr r0, r0, #(1 << 22) /* disable write allocate > > */ > > - cmp r3, #0x10 /* r3 contains the silicon rev */ > > + ldr r1, =0x0 > > + ldr r3, [r1, #ROM_SI_REV] > > + cmp r3, #0x10 > > You have to protect the code related to TO2 with CONFIG_MX51. As I can > see, the macro is called for MX.53, too, and the test produces wrong > results. Wow, you are right! So this code was actually broken in more ways than I initially thought :-) Ok, will fix it (again). Btw, may I congratulate you for your good work in improving u-boot code quality? It is starting to get to a level only known from LKML ;-) Clearly the code was not reviewed as well when this was initially submitted. Best regards, -- David Jander Protonic Holland. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
