> Dear Dirk Eibach,
Dear Wolfgang,
> ...
> > #define BASE_WIDTH 32
> > @@ -38,12 +44,18 @@
> > enum {
> > REG_CONTROL = 0x0010,
> > REG_MPC3W_CONTROL = 0x001a,
> > + REG_EXT_INTERRUPT = 0x001c,
> > + REG_EXT_INTERRUPT_ENABLE = 0x001e,
> > + REG_IIC_WRITE_MAILBOX = 0x0030,
> > + REG_IIC_WRITE_MAILBOX_EXT = 0x0032,
> > + REG_IIC_READ_MAILBOX = 0x0034,
> > + REG_IIC_READ_MAILBOX_EXT = 0x0036,
> > REG_VIDEOCONTROL = 0x0042,
> > - REG_OSDVERSION = 0x0100,
> > - REG_OSDFEATURES = 0x0102,
> > - REG_OSDCONTROL = 0x0104,
> > - REG_XY_SIZE = 0x0106,
> > - REG_VIDEOMEM = 0x0800,
> > + REG_OSDVERSION = CONFIG_SYS_FPGA_OSD_BASE + 0x0000,
> > + REG_OSDFEATURES = CONFIG_SYS_FPGA_OSD_BASE + 0x0002,
> > + REG_OSDCONTROL = CONFIG_SYS_FPGA_OSD_BASE + 0x0004,
> > + REG_XY_SIZE = CONFIG_SYS_FPGA_OSD_BASE + 0x0006,
> > + REG_VIDEOMEM = CONFIG_SYS_FPGA_OSD_MEM,
>
> This has a certain smell to me - it smells like device
> accesses based on a base + offset notation, which is not waht
> we want to see. Why don't you use proper C structs instead
> to describe your devices?
yup, got me. I know you prefer C struct based register access while we
don't. I'm sure anyone has excellent reasons for his opinion, and I
don't want to start a discussion here which would probably lead nowhere.
So, if you insist, I will convert our code to C struct based access.
Maybe you could point me to a nice clean implementation in u-boot, so I
can use the semantics you prefer (e.g. how holes in address space are
labeled).
> Best regards,
>
> Wolfgang Denk
Cheers
Dirk
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
