On Jul 22, 2010, at 10:30 AM, Peter Tyser wrote:
> Hi Timur,
>
>> +/**
>> + * Global Utility Registers.
>> + *
>> + * Not all registers defined in this structure are available on all chips,
>> so
>> + * you are expected to know whether a given register actually exists on your
>> + * chip before you access it.
>> + *
>> + * Also, some registers are similar on different chips but have slightly
>> + * different names. In these cases, one name is chosen to avoid extraneous
>> + * #ifdefs.
>> + */
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_85xx
>> +struct ccsr_guts_85xx {
>> +#else
>> +struct ccsr_guts_86xx {
>> +#endif
>
> Is there a good reason to have 2 different names for the same structure
> depending on the architecture? I'd think keeping a common "ccsr_guts"
> name would get rid of the ifdefs above as well as in code that can be
> used on both 85xx and 86xx processors down the road.
I asked for separate structs since the feeling is the GUTS code should be
limited to platform specific locations. Additionally the new P3/P4/P5 class
parts have a completely different guts immap so if/when we add them in things
would have to change.
- k
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
