Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:15:39 +0100 | From | Davide Ciminaghi <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/8 v3] DMA: PL330: use prefix in reg names to build under x86 |
| |
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 04:35:37PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: > On 24 November 2012 12:33, Alessandro Rubini <rubini@gnudd.com> wrote: > > My patch: > >>> This driver would not compile if ARM_AMBA is selected under x86, > >>> because "CS" and "DS" are already defined there. But AMBA > >>> is used in the x86 world by a PCI-to-AMBA bridge, to be submitted. > >>> > >>> The patch just adds the "PL330_" prefix to all register and bit fields, > >>> so it can be built by randomconfig after ARM_AMBA appears within x86. > > > > Jassy Brar: > >> Prefixing only CS and DS should be do the job. > >> Why do we have to make every symbol noisy with PL330_ ? > > > > For internal consistency. I attacked this problem in July. This is > > what you wrote: > > > > I fully agree with your point and IIRC I always add some prefix to > > definitions in header files. > > Private defines in a .c file, without redundant prefixes, sounded like > > safe to me at the time, but perhaps I was wrong. > > > > (references: http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/1/56) > > > > So I made the changes overall. I dislike needless long patches, but > > picking symbols to work around the conflict of the day while > > introducing inconsistent naming doesn't look good to me. > > > Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I didn't agree (and IIRC nobody > suggested) we prefix _every_ symbol in the driver now. Just CS, DS, ES > and maybe SA, DA, CC too for some consistency. IOW, only regs, not > bit-fields. > Hi Jassi,
I've changed the patch to have registers only prefixed with PL300_ (no prefix for bitfields). Will send the new version in a few days (I'm still waiting for comments on the other patches of the set).
Thanks and regards Davide
| |