> Subject: RE: [PATCH 07/24] imx: update is_imx6ull to include i.MX6ULZ > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/24] imx: update is_imx6ull to include i.MX6ULZ > > > > Hi, > > > > Am Donnerstag, 23. April 2020, 03:33:49 CEST schrieb Peng Fan: > > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/24] imx: update is_imx6ull to include > > > > i.MX6ULZ > > > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, 22. April 2020, 15:52:18 CEST schrieb Peng Fan: > > > > > Update is_imx6ull helper to include i.MX6ULZ SoC. i.MX6ULZ could > > > > > share same macro, then we no need to add is_imx6ulz in various > drivers. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <[email protected]> > > > > > --- > > > > > arch/arm/include/asm/mach-imx/sys_proto.h | 2 +- > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach-imx/sys_proto.h > > > > > b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach-imx/sys_proto.h > > > > > index a02cd40c7d..2a997f280d 100644 > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach-imx/sys_proto.h > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach-imx/sys_proto.h > > > > > @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ > > > > > #define is_mx6sl() (is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6SL)) #define > > > > is_mx6solo() > > > > > (is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6SOLO)) #define is_mx6ul() > > > > > (is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6UL)) -#define is_mx6ull() > > > > > (is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6ULL)) > > > > > +#define is_mx6ull() (is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6ULL) || > > > > > +is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6ULZ)) > > > > > > > > While I probably understand your intentions, I fear that it will > > > > lead to confusion when the helper's name does not reflect that > > > > more than one cpu type can match. > > > > What about introducing is_mx6ulX() to signal that the last letter > > > > is "don't care"? > > > > > > Renaming the macro needs to modify drivers using this macro, this is > > > risk to easy break existing code. > > > I prefer to keep as is. > > > > but when you look at the drivers using this is_mx6ull() macro, then > > you'll find already a bunch of other is_mx...() macros used in > > addition. Then it would also be possible to add the is_mx6ulz() one - > > it won't make the situation worse at these points. > > In my eyes, this is better than hiding two CPUs behind one macro. > > That's fine. I'll use ulx in v2.
After a check, there is lots places to change. I would keep v1. There will no more ull variants. ull is superset of ulz, only when need to handle ulz specific things, need to use is_mx6ulz. Thanks, Peng. > > Thanks, > Peng. > > > > > Thanks, > > Michael > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Peng. > > > > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Michael > > > > > > > > > #define is_mx6ulz() (is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6ULZ)) #define > > > > > is_mx6sll() (is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6SLL)) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
