On Monday, October 20, 2014 at 07:19:33 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: > On 20 October 2014 20:40, Marek Vasut <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Monday, October 20, 2014 at 04:53:15 PM, Jagan Teki wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >> > -#define ALTERA_SPI_RXDATA 0 > >> > -#define ALTERA_SPI_TXDATA 4 > >> > -#define ALTERA_SPI_STATUS 8 > >> > -#define ALTERA_SPI_CONTROL 12 > >> > -#define ALTERA_SPI_SLAVE_SEL 20 > >> > +struct altera_spi_regs { > >> > + u32 rxdata; > >> > + u32 txdata; > >> > + u32 status; > >> > + u32 control; > >> > + u32 _reserved; > >> > + u32 slave_sel; > >> > +}; > >> > >> Can you place this structure definition below of all macro defines, i > >> don't think the > >> next level patches does that, does they? > > > > Does it make sense to you, to first define the bits in registers and then > > the register layout ? It does not make sense to me, so I would prefer to > > keep it like it is. > > You're correct the way you replaced, usually the driver code will go like > this > > -- >includes > > --> macros definitions > > --> global or structure definitions > > --> driver function calls. > > We follow this [1] to make the driver more readable. > > [1] http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/265683/
I'm not sure what I am supposed to follow in the link above. Is it fine to assume that this patch does not need any change then ? Best regards, Marek Vasut _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
