Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> 2007/4/18, Gilles Chanteperdrix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> > Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>> > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_IPIPE
>> > > > > -#define AT91_VA_BASE_TCB0 AT91_IO_P2V(AT91RM9200_BASE_TCB0)
>> > > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_AT91RM9200)
>> > > > > + #define AT91_VA_BASE_TCB0
>> > AT91_IO_P2V(AT91RM9200_BASE_TCB0)
>> > > > > +#elif defined(CONFIG_ARCH_AT91SAM9260)
>> > > > > + #define AT91_VA_BASE_TCB0
>> > AT91_IO_P2V(AT91SAM9260_BASE_TCB0)
>> > > > > +#elif defined(CONFIG_ARCH_AT91SAM9261)
>> > > > > + #define AT91_VA_BASE_TCB0
>> > AT91_IO_P2V(AT91SAM9261_BASE_TCB0)
>> > > > > +#else
>> > > > > +#error "Unsupported AT91 processor"
>> > > > > +#endif
>> > > > > #endif /* CONFIG_IPIPE */
>> > > >
>> > > > To reduce the ifdef hell, can not we define a unique AT91_BASE_TCB0 ?
>> > >
>> > > Sure it would be better, but unfortunately the mainteners of AT91
>> > > choose to produce a define per architecture even if the register are
>> > > the same.
>> >
>> > As far as I know, the AT91RM9200_BASE_TCB0 define is provided by the
>> > I-pipe patch, so we may name it how we want.
>>
>>No, it is not provided by the I-pipe patch.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > > We keep this line :
>> > > #define AT91_VA_BASE_TCB0 AT91_IO_P2V(AT91RM9200_BASE_TCB0)
>> > > and it will work I don't like having an AT91RM9200 define for chip
>> > > which are not AT91RM9200. It adds confusion.
>> > >
>> > > We also could define AT91_BASE_TCB0 as you suggest, but it mean we add
>> > > a new register definition just for ipipe and it adds a little
>> > > confusion also.
>> > >
>> > > Choose the solution you prefer, or an other if you have a better idea.
>> >
>> > I do not have a better idea, but I understood why the defines are
>> > different: the CONFIG_ARCH_AT91RM9200, CONFIG_ARCH_AT91SAM9260 and
>> > CONFIG_ARCH_AT91SAM9261 are not mutually exclusive, it is possible to
>> > build a kernel that works for the three machines. So, this code can not
>> > remain as is. Please, at least, forbid in Kconfig selecting several
>> > machines when IPIPE is enabled.
>>
>>On 2.6.20, the options ARE mutually exclusive.
>
>
>
> Ok so do you want we produce a new patch taking in account your comments ?
> Or have you already done it?
If possible I would prefer you to produce a new patch.
--
Gilles Chanteperdrix
_______________________________________________
Adeos-main mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/adeos-main
