On 08:20 Mon 07 Jul , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 03:47:58PM +0800, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > wrote: > > > > On Jun 24, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Matteo Fortini <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > +void sam9_smc_sama5d3_configure(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config > > > *config, struct sam9_smc_sama5d3_extra_config *sama5d3_extra_config) > > 2 structures no > > > > just extend the current one for sam9 we just ignore the additional config > > sam9_smc_sama5d3_configure() is called from code which knows it runs on
I do agree to call sam9_smc_sama5d3_configure from sama5 directly or sama5_smc_configure(xx) will be better and shorter > sama5d3. IMO it doesn't make much sense to call a generic SoC function > from special board code when the generic SoC function has to > differentiate between SoCs in the next step. except you need both for the sama5 so no need to store on 2 struct one struct should be fine and few more bytes will not matter much on the current boards. Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
