From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stefano Babic Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:41:46 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 2/2] i.MX28: use a clear name for DDR2 initialization In-Reply-To: References: <1342471182-20351-1-git-send-email-otavio@ossystems.com.br> <1342471182-20351-3-git-send-email-otavio@ossystems.com.br> <50052D38.9020402@denx.de> Message-ID: <50055D8A.9070903@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 17/07/2012 14:16, Otavio Salvador wrote: > On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 6:15 AM, Stefano Babic wrote: >> Simply a general remark - I think we can discuss further when first >> patches for MX23 will be submitted. However, I think is a bad idea to >> specialize functions to a specific SOC. If a driver needs such as >> function, we will introduce some nasty #ifdef in driver code only to >> select which function must be called. And we duplicate this problem in >> all drivers. >> >> Instead of that, we could use the same general name. Where do we put >> mx23 code ? If we put it together with mx28 code (I mean in the same >> directory) we could extract specific SOC function from general files and >> use the mechanism provided by Makefile to compile the right one, for >> example: >> >> COBJS-$(CONFIG_MX28) += spl_mem_mx28.o >> COBJS-$(CONFIG_MX23) += spl_mem_mx23.o >> >> and spl_mem_init.c contains general code. Drivers call always the same >> function. Of course, this is only an example. At the moment, most mx28 >> function have the mx28_ prefix, but this is acceptable because up now >> the mx28 is the only one in this architecture. > > Agreed; I will check my current work in progress code and rework it > this way. However this prefix change is highly desired as it is > callmed m28 (looking as m28evk specific) instead of mx28. Yes, mx28 is a better name - if a prefix, it should be a SOC prefix, not a board name. But I noted : -uint32_t dram_vals[] = { +uint32_t mx28_dram_vals[] = { 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, 0x00000000, why is this structure not static ? Best regards, Stefano Babic -- ===================================================================== DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: +49-8142-66989-53 Fax: +49-8142-66989-80 Email: sbabic at denx.de =====================================================================