On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@xilinx.com> writes: > >> This patch series is based on Peter C's original register API. His >> original cover letter is below. > > OK that's my first pass review. I seem to be missing 16/16 in my inbox > though.
Thanks for going through it. I really appreciate it. I have problems with all of my emails going through, you should get it this time. > > My initial thoughts are it seems pretty useful from a validation point > of view. I'm a little uncomfortable with so much of the validation being > hidden behind debug statements though. I wonder if they should always be > checked but only optionally printed. Otherwise stuff is liable to > bit-rot until you turn on debug. I have addressed some of those in V4, let me know if you see any other problem areas. > > Also I'm not super crazy about the macro stuff. I can see what you are > trying to get to but I wonder if there is a neater way of defining this. > Obviously with C being what it is it could well be it is the least ugly > solution. I see what you mean and the macro magic does take some getting used to, but I don't have a better solution. If you do have one I can do it that way instead. > > The case for this may be improved if in addition to new devices and > existing device could be converted to the data driven style. That would > give a nicer old-style <-> new-style comparison. > > Once you've had a chance to go through the comments and fix up the > compile please CC me on future patches and I'll give the tyres a runtime > kicking ;-) Sending out V4 now, doesn't do us any good having something that doesn't compile on list. Thanks, Alistair > > Cheers, > > -- > Alex Bennée >