From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hongjiujing@126.com (tommy.hong) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:17:51 +0800 (CST) Subject: [PATCH 02/17] ARM: S5PC1XX: registers rename In-Reply-To: <20091106031845.GG3913@prithivi.gnumonks.org> References: <20091106031845.GG3913@prithivi.gnumonks.org> <1255421482-26455-1-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <1255421482-26455-2-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <1255421482-26455-3-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> Message-ID: <28219630.804641257495471280.JavaMail.coremail@bj126app54.126.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org yeah,i agree ?2009-11-06?11:18:45?"Harald?Welte"????? >Hi?Marek, > >On?Tue,?Oct?13,?2009?at?10:11:07AM?+0200,?Marek?Szyprowski?wrote: > >>?S5PC110?and?S5PC100?register?maps?differs?in?many?places,?rename?all >>?defined?registers?to?be?S5PC100?specific.?System?map?has?been?also?updated >>?to?cover?more?integrated?peripherals. > >The?general?idea?of?this?patch?is?fine.??However,?I?have?some?questions: > >>??/*?System?*/ >>?-#define?S5PC100_PA_SYS (0xE0100000) >>?-#define?S5PC100_PA_CLK (S5PC100_PA_SYS?+?0x0) >>?-#define?S5PC100_PA_PWR (S5PC100_PA_SYS?+?0x8000) >>?+#define?S5PC100_PA_CLK (0xE0100000) >>?+#define?S5PC100_PA_CLK_OTHER (0xE0200000) >>?+#define?S5PC100_PA_PWR (0xE0108000) > >this?is?more?like?a?rename.??Why?was?this?done???It?would?be?good?to?explain?in >the?commitlog > >>?+/*?GPIO?*/ >>?+#define?S5PC100_PA_GPIO (0xE0300000) >>?+#define?S5PC1XX_PA_GPIO S5PC100_PA_GPIO >>?+#define?S5PC1XX_VA_GPIO S3C_ADDR(0x00500000) > >If?the?address?is?different?for?c100?and?c110:?why?do?we?need?a?S5CP1XX_* >definition???In?my?personal?opinion,?all?those?compile-time?defines?are?a >kludge?and?we?should?not?introduce?more?of?them.??They?will?bite?us?in?the?back >if?we?ever?in?the?future?want?to?build?a?kernel?that?can?boot?on?both?c100?and >c110. > >>??/*?ETC?*/ >>??#define?S5PC100_PA_SDRAM (0x20000000) >>?+#define?S5PC1XX_PA_SDRAM S5PC100_PA_SDRAM > >Again?here.?We?already?have?the?c100?specific?define.??Why?add?a?new?c1xx?define? > >>?? /*?Maintainer:?Byungho?Min??*/ >>?- .phys_io =?S5PC1XX_PA_UART?&?0xfff00000, >>?+ .phys_io =?S5PC100_PA_UART?&?0xfff00000, > >this?is?the?change?I?like. > >>?? .io_pg_offst =?(((u32)S5PC1XX_VA_UART)?>>?18)?&?0xfffc, >>?- .boot_params =?S5PC100_PA_SDRAM?+?0x100, >>?+ .boot_params =?S5PC1XX_PA_SDRAM?+?0x100, > >This?is?the?wrong?kind?of?change,?from?my?point?of?view.??We?don't?know?yet >if?all?future?s5pc1xx?products?will?also?have?the?same?address,?do?we? > >--? >-?Harald?Welte????????????http://laforge.gnumonks.org/ >============================================================================ >"Privacy?in?residential?applications?is?a?desirable?marketing?option." >??????????????????????????????????????????????????(ETSI?EN?300?175-7?Ch.?A6) > >_______________________________________________ >linux-arm-kernel?mailing?list >linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org >http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: