From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jonathan.austin@arm.com (Jonathan Austin) Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:10:42 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v11 0/3] Another round of ARMv7-M patches In-Reply-To: <20130417193746.GR30416@pengutronix.de> References: <1366215299-31969-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <516EDEDA.1000108@arm.com> <20130417193746.GR30416@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <516FFEE2.1070304@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On 17/04/13 20:37, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 06:41:46PM +0100, Jonathan Austin wrote: >> The only comment I have left is that I'd really like the >> BASEADDRESS_V7M_SCB namespaced like the rest of the V7M defines > The idea behind this naming is that V7M_SCB_BASEADDRESS is in the same Do you mean is *not* in? > namespace as V7M_SCB_CPUID so I opened a new namespace for base > addresses. Don't you like it only because it's new? I think because readl(V7M_SCB_BASEADDRESS + V7M_SCB_CPUID) reads more cleanly than readl(BASEADDRESS_V7M_SCB + V7M_SCB_CPUID) But it isn't a big enough issue to delay merging these - more a preference/style issue. As you ask: does anyone else have any thoughts? Jonny > Do others have > thoughts here? > >> With that said, please feel free to add for the series: >> >> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Austin >> Tested-by: Jonathan Austin Thanks > Uwe >