Hi Wolfgang, On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > Dear Lei Wen, > > In message > <CALZhoSQbvKj0MtqryeHX-4LkvQJR2=b9u_m4yjjfm1mjv2m...@mail.gmail.com> you > wrote: >> >> >> So macro may looks more concise and could parse from its meaning easily >> >> eno= >> >> ugh. >> > >> > We do not accept (typeless) register offset definitions. Please use a >> > struct, so the compiler has a chance to perform type checking. >> >> I check the code again, and find there is a reason for previous >> defined macro to use. >> That is those register offset defined as macro may need later passing >> as a function >> parameter like: >> err = mmc_switch(mmc, EXT_CSD_CMD_SET_NORMAL, EXT_CSD_HS_TIMING, 1); > > I don;t see that any register (which now would be an address in a > struct insteadd of being an offset to be added to a base address) > would be passed as parameter to mmc_switch(). > > So this is not an issue at all. > >> So if the ext_csd change to structure, maybe the function call here >> don't looks like so >> concise as before... What do you think for this? > > The EXT_CSD field definitions are completely independent of the way > how you access the registers. >
So do you means I should keep the EXT_CSD_HS_TIMING? Or I change like below? from err = mmc_switch(mmc, EXT_CSD_CMD_SET_NORMAL, EXT_CSD_HS_TIMING, 1); to: err = mmc_switch(mmc, EXT_CSD_CMD_SET_NORMAL, &ext_csd.hs_timing - &ext_csd, 1); Best regards, Lei _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
