Hello Heiko, Thank you for your reply! On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:37 AM, Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> wrote: > Hello Christian, > > Christian Riesch wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Christian Riesch <christian.rie...@omicron.at> >> --- >> >> Hello Heiko, >> >> On my board I cannot use your code in arch_cpu_init() in da850_lowlevel.c >> since I have different versions of my board with different input >> clock frequencies. Here u-boot should first determine the board >> revision number and then configure the SoC accordingly. Therefore I would >> like to move all board-specific parts (and PLL and memory configuration is >> board-specific since it depends on the memory chips and oscillators >> deployed on the board) to board_early_init_f which is called right after >> arch_cpu_init() and keep only a few initializiation steps in arch_cpu_init(). > > Ok, if you have other needs on your board we must change something. > But I want to prevent, that all the code you remove in your patch is > moved to board code, so all boards must (copy?) it. Instead you should > move it to a weak function, which you can replace for your specific > needs. (I thought the code was common enough ...) > > What do you think?
That's fine for me, I tried it now with __attribute__((weak)) int arch_cpu_init(void) and added my own arch_cpu_init() to my board specific file. Of course I had to add all those CONFIG_SYS_DA850_PINMUXn with dummy values to my board config file to make it build... I don't like those defines because the values are difficult to read and we already have code for pinmuxing in board/davinci/common/davinci_pinmux.c so it is duplicate code. Couldn't we move this davinci_pinmux.c to arch/arm/cpu/arm926ejs/davinci and use it instead? What do you think? I'll submit a patch for adding the weak attribute. Regards, Christian _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
