From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 23:53:34 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCHv2 1/4] omap3: embedd gpmc_cs into gpmc config struct In-Reply-To: <20090515072511.GA17322@ultratronik.de> References: <20090512225114.GJ479@game.jcrosoft.org> <20090515072511.GA17322@ultratronik.de> Message-ID: <20090518215334.GQ17539@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 On 09:25 Fri 15 May , Matthias Ludwig wrote: > Dear Jean-Christophe > > > > #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ > > > +struct gpmc_cs { > > > + unsigned int config1; /* 0x00 */ > > > + unsigned int config2; /* 0x04 */ > > > + unsigned int config3; /* 0x08 */ > > > + unsigned int config4; /* 0x0C */ > > > + unsigned int config5; /* 0x10 */ > > > + unsigned int config6; /* 0x14 */ > > > + unsigned int config7; /* 0x18 */ > > why not an array so can use a loop as in enable_gpmc_cs_config() > > i also thought about that. Config 1 to 7 are the names used by TI's > processor manuals, replacing by an array would lead to 0 - 6. If this > would only be used in enable_gpmc_cs_config that wouldn't bother much, > but as it is also used in evm/evm.h for example i think it will bring > more confusion than it helps to simplify the code. ok Best Regards, J.