From: Tom Rini Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 13:46:44 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] mmc: fsl_esdhc fix register offset In-Reply-To: References: <1425972946-9555-1-git-send-email-Peng.Fan@freescale.com> <201503101445.40531.marex@denx.de> <54FF933D.7050906@freescale.com> <201503110303.50869.marex@denx.de> <54FFA59C.7050206@freescale.com> <66A58ED6-433C-408F-9C82-B02FC415AFA8@antoniou-consulting.com> Message-ID: <20150311174644.GU32541@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 01:03:16PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Pantelis Antoniou > wrote: > > > Although I agree with fixing this, I?m kinda scared about how fragile > > structs for describing hardware registers are. > > Agreed! > > > But we?re stuck with it I guess. > > Yes, it seems this is mandatory in U-boot. > > Kernel does not have such requirement and the standard way there is to > use (base + offset) for register accesses. So this is one of those topics that long term, I'd like to change U-Boot for but it's both a giant change and something we need to do a lot of prep-work for still. The long ago argument for why U-Boot does things the way it does boils down to type checking. The kernel gets this I think with a combination of sparse and other preprocessor magic / checks. We'll also need to migrate once device model work is farther along and people want more seriously to look at splitting out a runs-many-places U-Boot from a "must be board-centric, pretty much" SPL. -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: