> On 01/17/2012 06:27 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >> On 01/17/2012 04:19 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Nelson<eric.nel...@boundarydevices.com> > >>>> +/* ECSPI registers */ > >>>> +struct cspi_regs { > >>>> + u32 rxdata; > >>>> + u32 txdata; > >>>> + u32 ctrl; > >>>> + u32 cfg; > >>>> + u32 intr; > >>>> + u32 dma; > >>>> + u32 stat; > >>>> + u32 period; > >>>> +}; > >>> > >>> Sigh ... it's no fun I can have only one remark :-) > >>> > >>> Is this part common for all imx-es ? > >> > >> All i.MX6's > >> > >> This is a cut& paste from MX51. > >> > >> I was tempted to introduce an 'mxc_ecspi.h' to merge the declaration > >> for i.MX5x and i.MX6 which share the ECSPI peripheral and 'mxc_cspi.h' > >> for i.MX31 and i.MX35 that share the CSPI peripheral. > > > > But you don't even need this outside of the spi driver so just put it > > into the spi driver and be done with it. That'll solve your duplication > > issue. > > > > M > > I'll defer to Stefano on this one, since I did this in response > > to his request: > > Right - and we already discussed in the past how to avoid to put > > specific SOC code inside the driver. In fact, the cspi_regs structure > > was already moved into the specific SOC header (imx-regs.h) - but the > > definitions of the single bits of the registers are still inside the > > driver, as well as the base address of the (e)cspi controllers. > > > > They should also be moved - take into acoount by implementing your > > changes for i.mx6 > > The struct cspi_regs is already present in mx31, mx35, and mx51 headers, > so I'm not breaking new ground here, only in the bitfield declarations. > > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/include/asm/arch- mx31/i > mx-regs.h;h=6a517ddd931ca0d1e598bd7456c4c611741602eb;hb=HEAD#l60 > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx35/i > mx-regs.h;h=df74508a93ee87ae986f7c2f48f6c5fb36626070;hb=HEAD#l279 > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx5/im > x-regs.h;h=0ee88d25b7800ae9e6aed809d02dd19d9cac9c82;hb=HEAD#l423 > > My interpretation of Stefano's intent is to clean up the driver at the > expense of extra defines in the arch-specific headers.
But they're all the same, right? So we have now the same structure defined thrice? M > > Regards, > > > Eric _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot