[U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 2/5] mxs: prefix register acessor macros with 'mxs' prefix

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

Dear Otavio Salvador,

> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de> wrote:
> > Dear Otavio Salvador,
> > 
> >> On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Stefano Babic <sbabic@denx.de> wrote:
> >> > Personally I prefer that the function names are the same and the
> >> > implementation itself of the function hides the SOC details. In this
> >> > way, we provide the same interface API to the user (=the board
> >> > maintainer) and to the drivers that are surely shared between the MX28
> >> > and MX23.
> >> 
> >> Sure but the accessing structure is the same for MX233 and MX28 so
> >> makes sense to have it with SOC name. If we have some divertion here a
> >> ifdef will be need to handle.
> > 
> > And fill the files with gazilions of ifdefs, making them unreadable.
> 
> No; if we have too much difference we can move the structs to another
> header and keep one to "include the right" providing the layer and
> hidding it.

That's it

> Am I missing something?
> 
> >> I also think we ought to try to split function implementation when it
> >> diverts much (as code of spl_mem_init does
> > 
> > spl_mem_init() does not. How?
> 
> The are code there would need many ifdefs to get working fine for
> both;

What code? You can split that into functions (if you mean those few writes after 
programming the memory registers). I didn't notice much else.

Ah yes, programming the mem power rail.

> this could be split on spl_mem_mx233.c and spl_mem_mx28.c and
> spl_mem.c doing the generic part and calling the specifics.

No, it's not that different.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut