> >> Wouldn't it be better to declare gic_dist_base as a local variable? > >>It is only used once outside function armv7_switch_nonsec(). It could > >>be replaced with > >> get_gicd_base_address() call. > >> > >I am with you. That's what I did in the first version of this patch. > >Patch links is at: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/391065/ > >But Albert seems have some concerns. The attached is what we discussed. > > > >Now on the second thought, I prefer the way this patch proposed because > >if we define gic_dist_base as local variable, That means function > >get_gicd_base_address() should be usable at any time in any mode. Can > >we make sure of that in the future? > > I don't strongly object introducing a new local variable. But I don't see how > the > global variable is useful. Function get_gicd_base_address() should be > available all > the time. It reads PERIPHBASE register, or return a macro. It hasn't changed > since the first patch added it in 2013. Not sure if the original author Andre > Przywara is available to comments. > Thanks for your comments. If no one objects the original patch, I like to resubmit it.
Hi Albert, what's your opinion on this? Regards, Yuantian > York > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
