On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:28:23 +0200 Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 August 2007, Valentine Barshak wrote: > > >> +#define DDR_GET_VAL(val, mask, shift) (((val) >> (shift)) & (mask)) > > > > > > Hm. Having these as just DDR_... seems like it would lead to confusion > > > if there are other DDR controllers that get added later. But I'm not > > > too picky either way. > > > > What names would you suggest? DDR_DENALI_... looks too long :) > > The names have been taken from the docs, I've just prefixed them with DDR_. > > It's such a generic macro and not Denali or even SDRAM specific. So it really > should be no problem to keep it as is. I wasn't talking about DDR_GET_VAL. I meant having the DDR registers defines just as "DDR_START", "DDR_START_SHIFT", etc could be confusing later. But I don't really see a need to change it at the moment. We can prefix the with something else if a conflicting DDR controller ever shows up. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
