On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 03:47:58PM +0800, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > On Jun 24, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Matteo Fortini <matteo.fortini@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > +void sam9_smc_sama5d3_configure(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config, struct sam9_smc_sama5d3_extra_config *sama5d3_extra_config) > 2 structures no > > just extend the current one for sam9 we just ignore the additional config sam9_smc_sama5d3_configure() is called from code which knows it runs on sama5d3. IMO it doesn't make much sense to call a generic SoC function from special board code when the generic SoC function has to differentiate between SoCs in the next step. I'm ok with merging this patch or the original one, but if you are still interested in the AT91 port please not only complain about a patch two weeks later but also ACK a patch when you are fine with it. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
