On 7/31/2012 9:22 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 07/31/2012 09:46 AM, Vikram Narayanan wrote:
On 7/15/2012 10:53 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 07/11/2012 02:37 PM, Vikram Narayanan wrote:
Driver for BCM2835 SoC. This gives the basic functionality of
setting/clearing the output.
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-bcm2835/gpio.h
b/arch/arm/include/asm/arch-bcm2835/gpio.h
One more comment on the patch subject; it probably should be "gpio:
bcm2835:" not "bcm:" since (a) it's in the GPIO directory and (b) the
GPIO module is specifically for a BCM2835, and probably doesn't apply to
any/all Broadcom devices.
Linux kernel follows this naming, to be exact, it should've been
gpio-bcm2835.c. Having a thought in mind that one day the namings would
be made consistent with the kernel. That is the reason for this naming,
but isn't a big deal to change it.
Hmmm. It seems better to be internally consistent with U-Boot rather
than keeping (onyl part of) U-Boot consistent with the kernel...
Yes.
Shouldn't that be BCM2835_GPIO_COMMON_SHIFT not BCM2835_GPIO_COMMON_MASK?
If you'd like to have naming consistency FSEL_SHIFT/COMMON_SHIFT, then
it shall be COMMON_SHIFT.
But it doesn't do any shifting like the FSEL_SHIFT, rather it does only
masking of bits. So, it makes more sense for me to name it as MASK and
not SHIFT.
The full quote you're replying to was:
+int gpio_get_value(unsigned gpio)
+ return (val>> BCM2835_GPIO_COMMON_MASK(gpio))& 0x1;
Shouldn't that be BCM2835_GPIO_COMMON_SHIFT not BCM2835_GPIO_COMMON_MASK?
... so that macro is being used as a shift not as a mask.
Naming isn't really a problem for me. If you want it to be SHIFT, I'd go
with it.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
