From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 00:38:10 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 2/4] omap3: remove typedef for struct gpmc In-Reply-To: <4A087B7D.3020409@googlemail.com> References: <9558ad872d306e43c6605198c190d601c0c50c99.1242035389.git.mludwig@ultratronik.de> <09cd64b2360090e567714d756843eaf8bdf68cc5.1242035389.git.mludwig@ultratronik.de> <4A087B7D.3020409@googlemail.com> Message-ID: <20090512223810.GI479@game.jcrosoft.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de > > > > -typedef struct gpmc { > > +struct gpmc { > > unsigned char res1[0x10]; > > unsigned int sysconfig; /* 0x10 */ > > unsigned char res2[0x4]; > > @@ -125,7 +125,7 @@ typedef struct gpmc { > > unsigned int ecc7_result; /* 0x218 */ > > unsigned int ecc8_result; /* 0x21C */ > > unsigned int ecc9_result; /* 0x220 */ > > -} gpmc_t; > > +}; > > I wonder if you have the resources and like to convert all register > structs used by OMAP3 code and remove the typedef? > > Else we would have a mixture of typedefs and struct usage (see e.g. > above in sys_info.c). I would like to have it consistent, either the > one or the other way ;) What do you think? Fully agree Best Regards, J.