On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 10:00:31AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> [121109 09:13]: > > On Fri, 9 Nov 2012, Mark A. Greer wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 06:10:20PM +0200, Kasatkin, Dmitry wrote: > > > > > > > Why not using macros as it was before? > > > > > > > > OMAP24XX_SEC_SHA1MD5_BASE > > > > > > I am following the precedent set in the existing code of that file > > > which uses the actual address instead of a macro (except for uart). > > > > > > I have no preference but I believe that is how Paul prefers it. > > > > > > Paul? > > > > My upstream prefers the raw addresses, I believe, under the rationale that > > it allows the macro definitions to be removed from arch/arm/mach-omap2. > > This reduces the total number of lines of code in that directory - and > > this is currently an overriding concern of my upstreams. > > > > So, yes the address format in your patch is fine. > > Yes that should be the only place where that address is defined. > If OMAP24XX_SEC_SHA1MD5_BASE is used in multiple locations, then > it makes sense to define it in some local header. According to my 'git grep', its the only place so the patch should be good. Mark -- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
