Hello Yuantian, On Thu, 16 Oct 2014 04:42:06 +0000, Yuantian Tang <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Wouldn't it be better to declare gic_dist_base as a local variable? > > >>It is only used once outside function armv7_switch_nonsec(). It could > > >>be replaced with > > >> get_gicd_base_address() call. > > >> > > >I am with you. That's what I did in the first version of this patch. > > >Patch links is at: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/391065/ > > >But Albert seems have some concerns. The attached is what we discussed.
FTR, I only had concerns with the patch subject / commit summary. Regarding the patch itself, I just asked whether the global was not used as some means of coordination which would have been broken by turning it into a local, but you had checked, so that was fine. > > >Now on the second thought, I prefer the way this patch proposed because > > >if we define gic_dist_base as local variable, That means function > > >get_gicd_base_address() should be usable at any time in any mode. Can > > >we make sure of that in the future? > > > > I don't strongly object introducing a new local variable. But I don't see > > how the > > global variable is useful. Function get_gicd_base_address() should be > > available all > > the time. It reads PERIPHBASE register, or return a macro. It hasn't changed > > since the first patch added it in 2013. Not sure if the original author > > Andre > > Przywara is available to comments. > > > Thanks for your comments. > If no one objects the original patch, I like to resubmit it. > > Hi Albert, what's your opinion on this? Which 'original patch' do you mean? If it is http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/391065/ then I'm fine with it and will apply it. > Regards, > Yuantian > > > York > > Amicalement, -- Albert. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
