Hi,
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 01:31:28PM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> On 12/15/2014 01:09 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 09:03:19PM +0300, Aleksey Makarov wrote:
> >>From: David Daney <david.da...@cavium.com>
> >>
> >>Needed by follow-on patches.
> >
> >Looks like only one of the unions was needed (cvmx_rst_boot)...?
>
> This follows the form of the other register definition files.
>
> If Ralf requests it, we would consider deleting some of the currently unused
> definitions.
Most of this stuff looks like machine generated. Can you at least
just make it to minimize the amount of C code it produces?
What's the point of having union definitions like e.g. these:
+ struct cvmx_rst_boot_s cn70xx;
+ struct cvmx_rst_boot_s cn70xxp1;
+ struct cvmx_rst_boot_s cn73xx;
+ struct cvmx_rst_boot_s cn78xx;
etc?
A.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
