> On 18/01/2012 02:44, Eric Nelson wrote: > > 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: > Yes, I admit I am guilty about this ! > > The layout of the CSPI registers is not exactly the same for all SOCs. > For example, the MXC_CSPICTRL_TC has a different position, as well as > the BITCOUNT (because the MX31 can send less bits in one shot) and > MXC_CSPICTRL_CHIPSELECT. > > So they are similar, but not exactly the same. > > Then we have the MX5 registers. Even if we check the CSPI (not eCSPI) > controller, the layout of the registers is different compared to the MX3 > SOCs. > > > 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. > > Right, I see the same. The cspi_regs structure is already defined into > the imx_regs.h, only the bit layout was moved. And as the bit layout is > SOC dependent, I think the right place for it is inside the imx-regs.h > registers. > > > My interpretation of Stefano's intent is to clean up the driver at the > > expense > > of extra defines in the arch-specific headers. > > Yes, you're right - of course, I am open also to other solutions if they > are proofed to be better ;-). > > Best regards, > Stefano
Ok guys, I see ... Stefano, you're ok with putting the reg structures into these header files? M _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot