From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Tyser Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: rename immap_86xx.h to fsl_guts.h, and add 85xx support Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:30:17 -0500 Message-ID: <1279812617.7232.8703.camel@petert> References: <1279749902-13459-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1279749902-13459-1-git-send-email-timur@freescale.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppe-linuxppc-embedded-2=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppe-linuxppc-embedded-2=m.gmane.org@lists.ozlabs.org To: Timur Tabi Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, kumar.gala@freescale.com, lrg@slimlogic.co.uk List-Id: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Hi Timur, > +/** > + * Global Utility Registers. > + * > + * Not all registers defined in this structure are available on all chips, so > + * you are expected to know whether a given register actually exists on your > + * chip before you access it. > + * > + * Also, some registers are similar on different chips but have slightly > + * different names. In these cases, one name is chosen to avoid extraneous > + * #ifdefs. > + */ > +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_85xx > +struct ccsr_guts_85xx { > +#else > +struct ccsr_guts_86xx { > +#endif Is there a good reason to have 2 different names for the same structure depending on the architecture? I'd think keeping a common "ccsr_guts" name would get rid of the ifdefs above as well as in code that can be used on both 85xx and 86xx processors down the road. Best, Peter