On Monday 01 December 2014 21:28:20 Boris Brezillon wrote: > > On Monday 01 December 2014 19:29:23 Boris Brezillon wrote: > > > On Mon, 01 Dec 2014 17:26:27 +0100 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > #define AT91_EBICSA_REGFIELD(off) \ > > > REG_FIELD(ebicsa_off, AT91_MATRIX_EBI_NUM_CS - 1) > > > > > > > That would be acceptable too, but what I really meant is one step further: > > > > static const struct reg_field at91sam9260_ebi_csa = > > REG_FIELD(AT91SAM9260_MATRIX_EBICSA_OFF, 0, AT91_MATRIX_EBI_NUM_CS - 1); > > That's what I did in the first place (in a version I didn't submitted), > and I guess I'll go for that one unless you really prefer the > alternative (I ran into a lot of trouble with DT bindings ABI > stability, and I'd prefer to keep DT bindings as simple as > possible). Ok, that's good then. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
