On Friday, September 09, 2011 12:29:01 PM Stefano Babic wrote: > On 09/09/2011 12:12 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >> Another general remark here: we tend to have the same structure and the > >> same files for all IMX SOC. This means that all IMX SOC have a > >> imx-regs.h that contain the required register definitions (really a > >> subset what we have in kernel). Is it really necessary to split the > >> definitions in several small files ? > > > > Just like Heiko said ... it'd produce terribly big and messy file. I'd > > prefer to avoid that. > > This is ok, and it is ok also that your imx-regs.h file contains only > the reg-specific include files. What is not ok, is that you do not use > imx-regs.h and you still includes each separate file. And as I see, they > must be included in a specific order.
I patched the reg definition files. This should be solved. > > This order must be defined only in imx-regs.h, as you have already done > and then each driver/board requires to include only imx-regs.h, without > having to care of the single files. Ok > > > Honestly, I need to check if the file is used at all. We replaced the > > original driver with pl011 driver. > > Ok > > >> Again, regarding file splitting for register. If you prefer to have > >> several files, I think it is better that imx-regs.h include them. Then > >> we have still a common header imx-regs.h that contains all needed > >> register definitions. This is a better interface for a board maintainer. > > > > Won't it make the compiler slower at compile time if it has to go through > > all of the included files instead of a subset ? > > Well, I do not know if on our Intel-PC this makes a so noticeable > difference ;-) It's a point-of-view question, really. But what about people compiling stuff on slower machines ? > > What I remark here, it is to have a clear and identical interface among > the several SOCs. This is not only easier for board developers, but also > removes some nasty #ifdef CONFIG_MX from the drivers. Yes, I understand. btw there's no CONFIG_MX stuff. > > >> To understand: does a reset mean on the i.MX28 a power off ? Do you turn > >> off the power ? If this is the case, some features are not possible (as > >> PRAM, for example) on this SOC. > > > > This should just reset the chip. No poweroff. > > Ok - thanks for clarification. > > > I'll probably wait for someone to clearly say how this should be to avoid > > reworking it for the fourth time. > > Right. > > Best regards, > Stefano Babic Cheers _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
