On 22 October 2011 11:33, Andreas Färber <andreas.faer...@web.de> wrote: > Am 22.10.2011 12:20, schrieb Peter Maydell: >> On 3 October 2011 11:32, Andreas Färber <andreas.faer...@web.de> wrote: >>> -#define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136 0x4117b363 >>> -#define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R2 0x4107b362 >>> +#define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R1P3 0x4117b363 >>> +#define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R0P2 0x4107b362 >> >> I don't think the patchlevels are important enough to >> memorialise in the constant names. The important >> distinction in behaviour is between the r0 and r1, so >> I think that ARM1136_R0 vs _R1 would be better. > > Would you be okay if we do the following? > > #define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R0 ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R0P2 > #define ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R1 ARM_CPUID_ARM1136_R1P3
Not sure that makes it any better. > My point is that the number is actually hardcoded in there, whatever we > name the constant. I think that's really the problem... -- PMM
