On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 03:21:49AM -0700, Vince Hsu wrote:
Signed-off-by: Vince Hsu <vinceh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Need more of a patch description here. At least mention the new
command line arguments, and what Tegra132 is.
@@ -327,6 +328,27 @@ do { \
SET_BL_FIELD(to, field, v); \
} while (0);
+#define SET_MTS_FIELD(instance, field, value) \
+do { \
+ g_soc_config->set_mts_info(context, \
+ instance, \
+ token_mts_info_##field, \
+ value); \
+} while (0);
+
+#define GET_MTS_FIELD(instance, field, ptr) \
+g_soc_config->get_mts_info(context, \
+ instance, \
+ token_mts_info_##field, \
+ ptr);
+
+#define COPY_MTS_FIELD(from, to, field) \
+do { \
+ u_int32_t v; \
+ GET_MTS_FIELD(from, field, &v); \
+ SET_MTS_FIELD(to, field, v); \
+} while (0);
+
The trailing backslashes appear to have a lot of variable whitespace
here, can you clean these up?
return err;
}
+/*
+ * Load the mts image then update it with the information from config file.
+ * In the interest of expediency, all mts's allocated from bottom to top start
+ * at page 0 of a block, and all mts's allocated from top to bottom end at
+ * the end of a block.
+ *
+ * @param context The main context pointer
+ * @return 0 for success
+ */
+static int
+write_mts_image(build_image_context *context)
+{
This whole function is almost identical to write_bootloaders(), can
you pull out the common parts of these functions and parameterize the
differences to avoid the code duplication?
@@ -87,6 +89,8 @@ static parse_item parse_simple_items[] =
{ "BootLoader=", token_bootloader, parse_bootloader },
{ "Redundancy=", token_redundancy, parse_value_u32 },
{ "Bctcopy=", token_bct_copy, parse_value_u32 },
+ { "MtsPreboot=", token_mts_preboot, parse_mts_image},
+ { "Mts=", token_mts, parse_mts_image},
Whitespace looks off here
{ "Version=", token_version, parse_value_u32 },
{ "PreBctPadBlocks=", token_pre_bct_pad_blocks, parse_value_u32 },
{ NULL, 0, NULL } /* Must be last */
@@ -105,6 +109,8 @@ static parse_item s_top_level_items[] = {
{ "BootLoader=", token_bootloader, parse_bootloader },
{ "Redundancy=", token_redundancy, parse_value_u32 },
{ "Bctcopy=", token_bct_copy, parse_value_u32 },
+ { "MtsPreboot=", token_mts_preboot, parse_mts_image},
+ { "Mts=", token_mts, parse_mts_image},
and here
+cbootimage_soc_config tegra132_config = {
+ .init_bad_block_table = t132_init_bad_block_table,
+ .set_dev_param = t132_set_dev_param,
+ .get_dev_param = t132_get_dev_param,
+ .set_sdram_param = t132_set_sdram_param,
+ .get_sdram_param = t132_get_sdram_param,
+ .setbl_param = t132_setbl_param,
+ .getbl_param = t132_getbl_param,
+ .set_value = t132_bct_set_value,
+ .get_value = t132_bct_get_value,
+ .set_data = t132_bct_set_data,
+ .get_bct_size = t132_get_bct_size,
+ .set_mts_info = t132_set_mts_info,
+ .get_mts_info = t132_get_mts_info,
+ .token_supported = t132_bct_token_supported,
+
+ .devtype_table = s_devtype_table_t132,
+ .sdmmc_data_width_table = s_sdmmc_data_width_table_t132,
+ .spi_clock_source_table = s_spi_clock_source_table_t132,
+ .nvboot_memory_type_table = s_nvboot_memory_type_table_t132,
+ .sdram_field_table = s_sdram_field_table_t132,
+ .nand_table = 0,
+ .sdmmc_table = s_sdmmc_table_t132,
+ .spiflash_table = s_spiflash_table_t132,
+ .device_type_table = s_device_type_table_t132,
+};
+
Since Tegra132 and Tegra124 are so similar, can we reuse the Tegra124
version of any of these to avoid the duplication?
