On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 01:03:16PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Pantelis Antoniou
> <pa...@antoniou-consulting.com> wrote:
> 
> > Although I agree with fixing this, I’m kinda scared about how fragile
> > structs for describing hardware registers are.
> 
> Agreed!
> 
> > But we’re stuck with it I guess.
> 
> Yes, it seems this is mandatory in U-boot.
> 
> Kernel does not have such requirement and the standard way there is to
> use (base + offset) for register accesses.

So this is one of those topics that long term, I'd like to change U-Boot
for but it's both a giant change and something we need to do a lot of
prep-work for still.  The long ago argument for why U-Boot does things
the way it does boils down to type checking.  The kernel gets this I
think with a combination of sparse and other preprocessor magic /
checks.

We'll also need to migrate once device model work is farther along and
people want more seriously to look at splitting out a runs-many-places
U-Boot from a "must be board-centric, pretty much" SPL.

-- 
Tom

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Reply via email to