From: Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] AT91 Header File Clarification
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 20:02:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1207418559.4841.7.camel@voyager.dsnet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <206b9e70804041632o391fc02fscac580e81b4bec7c@mail.gmail.com>
Le vendredi 04 avril 2008 ? 16:32 -0700, Zac Wheeler a ?crit :
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net> wrote:
> >
> > Le vendredi 04 avril 2008 ? 13:32 -0700, Zac Wheeler a ?crit :
> >
> > > I have a question about the arrangement of include files for the
> > > at91sam9 family.
> > >
> > > Is the intention that asm/arch/at91_xxx.h be applicable for all
> > > at91sam9 microcontrollers, or should they be broken down into subarch
> > > folders (e.g. asm/arch/at91sam9261/at91_pmc.h)?
> >
> > They are supposed to be shareable for all at91sam microcontrollers, in
> > the same way it's done in Linux.
>
> So should things like AT91_ECC as defined in at91sam960.h be
> AT91SAM9260_ECC instead or moved to an at91_sys.h file?
No, the idea is to keep the same conventions as the kernel guys. In fact
the header files have been copied from Linux, and are 95% identical to
them (we cannot use the header files provided by Atmel, because there is
too much craft inside, and rewriting a third form of the same headers
seemed to me too error prone).
As for AT91_ECC:
at91cap9.h:#define AT91_ECC (0xffffe200 - AT91_BASE_SYS)
at91sam9260.h:#define AT91_ECC (0xffffe800 - AT91_BASE_SYS)
at91sam9263.h:#define AT91_ECC0 (0xffffe000 - AT91_BASE_SYS)
at91sam9263.h:#define AT91_ECC1 (0xffffe600 - AT91_BASE_SYS)
at91sam9rl.h:#define AT91_ECC (0xffffe800 - AT91_BASE_SYS)
seems to me quite nice this way !
> It seems
> somewhat dangerous to define an AT91_ in a AT91SAM9260-specific file.
It shouldn't be. All the AT91 platforms have pretty much the same
hardware, so having the same constants means we don't need extra #ifdefs
in the driver code.
Of course, one should take care of including only the header file which
goes with his platform. This is what
include/asm-arm/arch-at91sam9/hardware.h does: based on what
CONFIG_AT91xxxxx is defined, the relevant platform specific header file
is included.
Stelian.
--
Stelian Pop <stelian@popies.net>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-05 18:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-04 20:32 [U-Boot-Users] AT91 Header File Clarification Zac Wheeler
2008-04-04 22:25 ` Stelian Pop
2008-04-04 23:32 ` Zac Wheeler
2008-04-05 18:02 ` Stelian Pop [this message]
2008-04-05 2:08 ` Zac Wheeler
2008-04-05 16:46 ` Stelian Pop
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1207418559.4841.7.camel@voyager.dsnet \
--to=stelian@popies.net \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox