From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Magnus Lilja <lilja.magnus@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 18:59:18 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 01/10] mx27: basic cpu support
In-Reply-To: <20090514094212.2E760832E416@gemini.denx.de>
References: <1241634633-13917-1-git-send-email-yanok@emcraft.com>
	<1241634633-13917-2-git-send-email-yanok@emcraft.com>
	<20090506211604.289C483420E8@gemini.denx.de>
	<4A0B4F9A.8030503@emcraft.com>
	<20090514081007.AF05C832E416@gemini.denx.de>
	<4A0BE30F.9070902@emcraft.com>
	<20090514094212.2E760832E416@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <59b21cf20905180959p4e736d52g566b0e826e17c07a@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Dear Wolfgang,

2009/5/14 Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>:
>> I see. PowerPC in Linux uses C structs too. But there are still a lot of
>> code that uses registers offsets in Linux, so my arguments are the same:
>> requirement to convert offsets to C struct brings additional
>> difficulties to porting (and maintaining already ported) drivers from Linux.
>
> I understand your argument, but the decision has been made. We want to
> get rid of this pointer stuff in U-Boot, and do not accept any new
> code like this any more.

After having browsed some powerpc code I can find two different ways
the struct-thing is used:
Variant A, all members declared volatile:
struct controller_reg {
  volatile uint32_t reg1;
  volatile uint32_t reg2;
}

struct controller_reg *controller = 0xCAFE0000;

Or variant B:
struct controller_reg {
  uint32_t reg1;
  uint32_t reg2;
}

volatile struct controller_reg *controller = 0xCAFE0000;

Also, is it OK to access the registers using reg = controller->reg1 or
should we use reg = readl(&controller->reg1)?

I ask this since I don't want to iterate the patches on the mailing
list too many times...

Regards, Magnus