Hi Sascha,
> > + local_irq_disable(); > > + do_gettimeofday(&before); > > + > > + plat_lpc = __raw_readl(MXC_CORTEXA8_PLAT_LPC) & > > + ~(MXC_CORTEXA8_PLAT_LPC_DSM); > > One thing that strikes me here is the fact that this code can probably > run on i.MX53 aswell, right? It's only that these registers have > different addresses on i.MX53. The MXC_ prefix is therefore not a good > idea. Switching this to MX51_ and having an additional MX53_ register > leads to code duplication. This shows that it's a bad idea to code > fixed addresses in the code. We should go for base + offset instead > so that this code will have a better start on i.MX53. This of course > needs changes in the current crm_regs.h and probably in the i.MX51/53 > clock code. > Yes, for mx53, it is similar. But for the case you are talking about, is it easier that we keep MXC_ prefix in this file and define MXC_ to MX51 or MX53 in crm_regs.h according to which board is running? In addition, registers for this code are not in one section, which means many BASEx + offset there, if I understand right. Do you have a sample for 'base + offset' case? since mx53 just came in, I am not sure about such case. yong > >
_______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
