On 07/08/17 13:32, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > We actually just need the chipcommon base address so why not have that > here, ie.: > + u32 cc_base; I see no advantage to that - the u32 is the same size as (or not much bigger than the pointer to the struct brcmf_core, and my approach makes it clear where the value came from rather than making another copy of it. > Another option is to simple use SI_ENUM_BASE as the chipcommon base > address will always be 0x18000000 for the SDIO chips. I don't like this approach. Why bother probing the core if we then dont use the values returned? May as well hard code everything... Also not futureproof. -Ian
