On 9/27/23 10:32, Andre Przywara wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:34:20 -0700
Sam Edwards <cfswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Sam,
Hi Andre,
Mmh, I didn't find a better solution than keeping this in.
I'll keep it if your R528 v2 doesn't find some other way to address it.
+#endif
+#if defined(SUNXI_CPUX_BASE) && defined(SUNXI_CPUCFG_BASE)
+#undef SUNXI_CPUCFG_BASE
+#define SUNXI_CPUCFG_BASE SUNXI_CPUX_BASE
So what's the story with this? Do we name this differently
(SUNXI_CPUX_BASE) because the IP block is different from the other SoCs?
Or is there another SUNXI_CPUCFG IP block on the R528/T113s SoCs?
If not, I think we should use the SUNXI_CPUCFG_BASE name directly in
cpu_sunxi_ncat2.h, as we never claimed that same names for some MMIO
address blocks means they are compatible.
Please let me know if I miss something.
That's just for compatibility with R528 series v1. It's expected that
you'll rename it to SUNXI_CPUCFG_BASE for v2. The preprocessor trickery
looks for *both* being defined and applies the update. The rest of the
code proceeds using SUNXI_CPUCFG_BASE. (Keep in mind this is particular
patch is a hack patch, it's not considered for inclusion.)
Warm regards,
Sam
