On 15 April 2015 at 09:35, Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 15-04-15 08:51, Michal Suchanek wrote:
>>
>> On 14 April 2015 at 18:06, Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> sun6i and newer (derived) SoCs such as the sun8i-a23, sun8i-a33 and sun9i
>>> have a various things in common, like having separate ahb reset control
>>> registers, the SID living inside the pmic, custom pmic busses, new style
>>> watchdog, etc.
>>>
>>> This commit introduces a new hidden ARCH_SUN6I Kconfig bool which can be
>>> used to check for these features avoiding the need for an ever growing
>>> list
>>> of "#if defined CONFIG_MACH_SUN?I" conditionals as we add support for
>>> more
>>> "new style" sunxi SoCs.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/board.c | 18 +++++++++---------
>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/cpu_info.c | 2 +-
>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/usbc.c | 4 ++--
>>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/cpu_sun4i.h | 12 ++++++------
>>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/mmc.h | 3 +--
>>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-sunxi/timer.h | 8 ++++----
>>> board/sunxi/Kconfig | 9 +++++++++
>>> board/sunxi/gmac.c | 6 +++---
>>> drivers/mmc/sunxi_mmc.c | 3 +--
>>> drivers/video/sunxi_display.c | 10 +++++-----
>>> 10 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/board.c
>>> b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/board.c
>>> index 6471c6b..30d5974 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/board.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/sunxi/board.c
>>> @@ -173,7 +173,15 @@ void board_init_f(ulong dummy)
>>>
>>> void reset_cpu(ulong addr)
>>> {
>>> -#if defined(CONFIG_MACH_SUN4I) || defined(CONFIG_MACH_SUN5I) ||
>>> defined(CONFIG_MACH_SUN7I)
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_SUN6I
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> this looks wrong.
>>
>> Either this is ARCH_SUNXI and it coverts all or it's ARCH_SUN6I and
>> then SUN4I and SUN5I should still be checked separately.
>
>
> Look closer, the blocks before / after the #else are swapped to avoid
> needing
> to use #ifndef without good reason as that is ugly.
So you mean that
ARCH_SUN6I is
!defined(MACH_SUN4I) && !defined(MACH_SUN5I) && !defined(MACH_SUN7I) &&
(defined(MACH_SUN6I) || defined(MACH_SUN8I) || defined(MACH_SUN9I))
Now that is ugly.
This probably needs a better name then.
Thanks
Michal
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
