On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 08:17:44PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 08:20 Mon 07 Jul , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > > 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 > > I do agree to call sam9_smc_sama5d3_configure from sama5 directly > > or sama5_smc_configure(xx) will be better and shorter > > 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. > > except you need both for the sama5 so no need to store on 2 struct > one struct should be fine > > and few more bytes will not matter much on the current boards. Ok, so we agree on two functions, but a single struct. 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
