Re: [Adeos-main] AT91SAM9261 adeos support for 2.6.19 kernel

[Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>]

Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> 2007/4/18, Gilles Chanteperdrix <gilles.chanteperdrix@xenomai.org>:
> 
>>Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> > Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>> >  > > >  #ifdef CONFIG_IPIPE
>> >  > > > -#define AT91_VA_BASE_TCB0       AT91_IO_P2V(AT91RM9200_BASE_TCB0)
>> >  > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_AT91RM9200)
>> >  > > > +     #define AT91_VA_BASE_TCB0       AT91_IO_P2V(AT91RM9200_BASE_TCB0)
>> >  > > > +#elif defined(CONFIG_ARCH_AT91SAM9260)
>> >  > > > +     #define AT91_VA_BASE_TCB0       AT91_IO_P2V(AT91SAM9260_BASE_TCB0)
>> >  > > > +#elif defined(CONFIG_ARCH_AT91SAM9261)
>> >  > > > +     #define AT91_VA_BASE_TCB0       AT91_IO_P2V(AT91SAM9261_BASE_TCB0)
>> >  > > > +#else
>> >  > > > +#error "Unsupported AT91 processor"
>> >  > > > +#endif
>> >  > > >  #endif /* CONFIG_IPIPE */
>> >  > >
>> >  > > To reduce the ifdef hell, can not we define a unique AT91_BASE_TCB0 ?
>> >  >
>> >  > Sure it would be better, but unfortunately the mainteners of AT91
>> >  > choose to produce a define per architecture even if the register are
>> >  > the same.
>> >
>> > As far as I know, the AT91RM9200_BASE_TCB0 define is provided by the
>> > I-pipe patch, so we may name it how we want.
>>
>>No, it is not provided by the I-pipe patch.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >  > We keep this line :
>> >  > #define AT91_VA_BASE_TCB0       AT91_IO_P2V(AT91RM9200_BASE_TCB0)
>> >  > and it will work I don't like having an AT91RM9200 define for chip
>> >  > which are not AT91RM9200. It adds confusion.
>> >  >
>> >  > We also could define AT91_BASE_TCB0 as you suggest, but it mean we add
>> >  > a new register definition just for ipipe and it adds a little
>> >  > confusion also.
>> >  >
>> >  > Choose the solution you prefer, or an other if you have a better idea.
>> >
>> > I do not have a better idea, but I understood why the defines are
>> > different: the CONFIG_ARCH_AT91RM9200, CONFIG_ARCH_AT91SAM9260 and
>> > CONFIG_ARCH_AT91SAM9261 are not mutually exclusive, it is possible to
>> > build a kernel that works for the three machines. So, this code can not
>> > remain as is. Please, at least, forbid in Kconfig selecting several
>> > machines when IPIPE is enabled.
>>
>>On 2.6.20, the options ARE mutually exclusive.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok so do you want we produce a new patch taking in account your comments ?
> Or have you already done it?

If possible I would prefer you to produce a new patch.

-- 
                                                 Gilles Chanteperdrix