From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 17:10:35 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/7] spi: altera: Use struct-based register
	access
In-Reply-To: <CAD6G_RQ3WqUKM-xHATdMBYVkAJpQfCog-GBcvCJZrGw-=vyJFw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1413744219-6859-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de>
	<CAD6G_RQ3WqUKM-xHATdMBYVkAJpQfCog-GBcvCJZrGw-=vyJFw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201410201710.35241.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

On Monday, October 20, 2014 at 04:53:15 PM, Jagan Teki wrote:

[...]

> > -#define ALTERA_SPI_RXDATA      0
> > -#define ALTERA_SPI_TXDATA      4
> > -#define ALTERA_SPI_STATUS      8
> > -#define ALTERA_SPI_CONTROL     12
> > -#define ALTERA_SPI_SLAVE_SEL   20
> > +struct altera_spi_regs {
> > +       u32     rxdata;
> > +       u32     txdata;
> > +       u32     status;
> > +       u32     control;
> > +       u32     _reserved;
> > +       u32     slave_sel;
> > +};
> 
> Can you place this structure definition below of all macro defines, i
> don't think the
> next level patches does that, does they?

Does it make sense to you, to first define the bits in registers and then
the register layout ? It does not make sense to me, so I would prefer to
keep it like it is.

[...]

Best regards,
Marek Vasut