From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 18:47:26 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V3 01/20] Add functions for use with i.mx6 otg
	udc
In-Reply-To: <51FC69C7.2000407@boundarydevices.com>
References: <1375399657-25642-1-git-send-email-troy.kisky@boundarydevices.com>
	<201308030345.24452.marex@denx.de>
	<51FC69C7.2000407@boundarydevices.com>
Message-ID: <201308031847.26751.marex@denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Dear Troy Kisky,

[...]

> >> Why is there a union ? It looks to me like you just want to access the
> >> same variable
> >> with 2 naming strategies.
> > 
> > That is correct. I can either pass it further into functions as the
> > struct mxs_register_32 name_reg or I can directly access it as
> > name_set/_clr/_tog . Works just fine.
> 
> I never said it didn't work, obviously it does.
> 
> > Best regards,
> > Marek Vasut
> 
> There may be code that you can point at that would make this useful, but
> I have
> a hard time envisioning it. The code I added, I know doesn't need a
> union, and I bet most
> of the other variable accesses don't need a union. That's why I asked if
> you'd like
> me to attempt to clean it up (always access thru struct, ie replace
> name_set with name.set).

No, I want to keep this as-is. Especially because the MX28 has the registers 
named exactly by this scheme.

> I don't want to change the code I added to use this.

Please do, I do not want a duplicit implementation of these register structures 
in the tree.

> I can see a small advantage in consistency with the mx28.

THe MX6 uses many IP blocks from MX28 -- APBH DMA, NAND, USB -- to name a few. 
Keeping mx28 and mx6 aligned is more than helpful.

Best regards,
Marek Vasut