On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 04:29:14AM +0200, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote: > chipaddr is my favourite, though, because our accessor functions are > named chip_read* and chip_write* and this would give us some naming > consistency. Of course, said consistency can also be achieved by > renaming the chip accessor functions to flash_read* and flash_write*. > > The name is a not important for me as long as we can kill volatile > uint8_t * with it. > :-) > > Do you want me to resend, and with which name?
I'd say let's use flashaddr for now, but IMHO either name is fine. Acked-by: Uwe Hermann <[email protected]> Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
