From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:6f8:1178:4:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1X4O7r-0005Pf-0R for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 05:39:35 +0000 Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 07:39:05 +0200 From: Sascha Hauer Message-ID: <20140708053905.GQ23235@pengutronix.de> References: <1403609192-5862-1-git-send-email-matteo.fortini@gmail.com> <09A40395-E357-43DD-85C3-DF74415EE74F@jcrosoft.com> <20140707062020.GB23235@pengutronix.de> <20140707181744.GB19147@ns203013.ovh.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140707181744.GB19147@ns203013.ovh.net> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] sama5d3x: fix HSMC MODE register offset and add TIMINGS register To: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 08:17:44PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > On 08:20 Mon 07 Jul , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 04, 2014 at 03:47:58PM +0800, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 24, 2014, at 7:26 PM, Matteo Fortini wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > +void sam9_smc_sama5d3_configure(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config, struct sam9_smc_sama5d3_extra_config *sama5d3_extra_config) > > > 2 structures no > > > > > > just extend the current one for sam9 we just ignore the additional config > > > > sam9_smc_sama5d3_configure() is called from code which knows it runs on > > I do agree to call sam9_smc_sama5d3_configure from sama5 directly > > or sama5_smc_configure(xx) will be better and shorter > > sama5d3. IMO it doesn't make much sense to call a generic SoC function > > from special board code when the generic SoC function has to > > differentiate between SoCs in the next step. > > except you need both for the sama5 so no need to store on 2 struct > one struct should be fine > > and few more bytes will not matter much on the current boards. Ok, so we agree on two functions, but a single struct. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox