On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 11:29 AM Anatolij Gustschin <ag...@denx.de> wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Oct 2019 10:43:46 +0200 > Simon Goldschmidt simon.k.r.goldschm...@gmail.com wrote: > ... > > > Why is this required? In the past we have rejected all new code adding > > > defines instead of structs for register accesses. Have we changed our > > > mind now? > > > > Who is we? > > U-Boot maintainers/community. > > > I haven't noticed that in the last 2 years. Plus Linux is rather > > using structs than defines, or am I wrong? > > The preferred way for I/O access is documented in [1], see "Use structures > for I/O access" section.
[1] also states "This may need to change to the kernel model if we allow for more run-time detection of what drivers are appropriate for what we're running on." This seems to apply here as well. Regards, Simon > > > This started because Ley introduced a new platform where the structs were > > nearly the same but *some* registers have changed. Adding new structs > > that were nearly the same seemed more mess than using the same defines. > > > > I'm not pressing this into any direction, we can continue using structs > > if that's the consensus. > > If there is no other easy way to continue using struct, then this should > be mentioned in the commit description/cover letter to justify the changes. > > [1] http://www.denx.de/wiki/U-Boot/CodingStyle > > -- > Anatolij _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
