Hi, On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 01:31:28PM -0800, David Daney wrote: > On 12/15/2014 01:09 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote: > >Hi, > > > >On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 09:03:19PM +0300, Aleksey Makarov wrote: > >>From: David Daney <david.daney@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>Needed by follow-on patches. > > > >Looks like only one of the unions was needed (cvmx_rst_boot)...? > > This follows the form of the other register definition files. > > If Ralf requests it, we would consider deleting some of the currently unused > definitions. Most of this stuff looks like machine generated. Can you at least just make it to minimize the amount of C code it produces? What's the point of having union definitions like e.g. these: + struct cvmx_rst_boot_s cn70xx; + struct cvmx_rst_boot_s cn70xxp1; + struct cvmx_rst_boot_s cn73xx; + struct cvmx_rst_boot_s cn78xx; etc? A.
