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