On 21.07.2016 08:54, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 10:52:52AM -0700, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 7:17 AM, Wadim Egorov <w.egorov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> +
>>> +struct rk3288_cru {
>>> + struct rk3288_pll {
>>> + u32 con0;
>>> + u32 con1;
>>> + u32 con2;
>>> + u32 con3;
>>> + } pll[5];
>>> + u32 cru_mode_con;
>>> + u32 reserved0[3];
>>> + u32 cru_clksel_con[43];
>>> + u32 reserved1[21];
>>> + u32 cru_clkgate_con[19];
>>> + u32 reserved2;
>>> + u32 cru_glb_srst_fst_value;
>>> + u32 cru_glb_srst_snd_value;
>>> + u32 cru_softrst_con[12];
>>> + u32 cru_misc_con;
>>> + u32 cru_glb_cnt_th;
>>> + u32 cru_glb_rst_con;
>>> + u32 reserved3;
>>> + u32 cru_glb_rst_st;
>>> + u32 reserved4;
>>> + u32 cru_sdmmc_con[2];
>>> + u32 cru_sdio0_con[2];
>>> + u32 cru_sdio1_con[2];
>>> + u32 cru_emmc_con[2];
>>> +};
>> I, personally, am not a big fan of using structs to describe register
>> file layout since it makes it hard to figure out individual register's
>> offset just by reading the code, is compiler implementation/arch
>> specific (that probably wouldn't be a problem though) and goes against
>> the style in which majority of Linux kernel driver code(and by
>> extension Barebox) is written in.
> I do not like structs over registers also, for said reasons. Also they
> become really messy when different register sizes and strides get
> involved, these are typically solved with ifdeffery which limits the
> resulting binary to a single board.
>
> Anyway, for some reason structs over registers are policy in U-Boot
> and when sharing code like done in this clock driver it just makes it
> easier to a) share it in the first place and b) keep it in sync with
> U-Boot. So, I am fine with structs over registers in code copied from
> U-Boot, but I won't accept original code using it.
>
> Sascha
>
OK, for now I just keep the code I copied from the u-boot.
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
