[PATCH 02/17] ARM: S5PC1XX: registers rename

[Ben Dooks]

On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 04:02:17PM +0100, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Friday, November 06, 2009 4:19 AM, Harald Welte wrote:
>  
> > Hi Marek,
> > 
> > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 10:11:07AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
> > 
> > > S5PC110 and S5PC100 register maps differs in many places, rename all
> > > defined registers to be S5PC100 specific. System map has been also updated
> > > to cover more integrated peripherals.
> > 
> > The general idea of this patch is fine.  However, I have some questions:
> > 
> > >  /* System */
> > > -#define S5PC100_PA_SYS		(0xE0100000)
> > > -#define S5PC100_PA_CLK		(S5PC100_PA_SYS + 0x0)
> > > -#define S5PC100_PA_PWR		(S5PC100_PA_SYS + 0x8000)
> > > +#define S5PC100_PA_CLK		(0xE0100000)
> > > +#define S5PC100_PA_CLK_OTHER	(0xE0200000)
> > > +#define S5PC100_PA_PWR		(0xE0108000)
> > 
> > this is more like a rename.  Why was this done?  It would be good to explain in
> > the commitlog
> 
> I renamed these registers to better match the chip specification. The 'SYS'
> register name was borrowed from S3C64XX series and is a bit inadequate in C100.
>  
> > > +/* GPIO */
> > > +#define S5PC100_PA_GPIO		(0xE0300000)
> > > +#define S5PC1XX_PA_GPIO		S5PC100_PA_GPIO
> > > +#define S5PC1XX_VA_GPIO		S3C_ADDR(0x00500000)
> > 
> > If the address is different for c100 and c110: why do we need a S5CP1XX_*
> > definition?  In my personal opinion, all those compile-time defines are a
> > kludge and we should not introduce more of them.  They will bite us in the back
> > if we ever in the future want to build a kernel that can boot on both c100 and
> > c110.
> 
> These C1XX defines were the first step to prepare the code for C110 support. 
> 
> S5PC110 register map differs completely from the S5PC100 one. These two SOCs
> cannot be easily handled by the same kernel binary image without some hacks and
> runtime fixups if we place them in the one kernel platform. Creating yet another
> kernel platform just because of these differences would unnecessarily duplicate
> a lot of code and would not use the potential of the current kernel
> infrastructure (separate include directories, resource&device driver model, etc).

can people line-wrap their emails a bit more please..
 
> My idea was to introduce a sub-platforms in plat-s5pc1xx. Such sub-platforms
> would be exclusive - one for C100 and one for C110. Each of the sub-platforms would
> have its own include files (in mach-s5pc100 and mach-s5pc110 directories
> respectively) and most of the chip differences can be handled in compile time by
> proper macros. Macros for the common resources would use 'C1XX' names. In this
> approach common resources (GPIO, DMA, io space and so on) can be easily defined
> with C1XX defines. This also perfectly matches the current convention of common
> S3C_XXX defines (i.e. S3C_PA_UART, S3C_PA_FB, S3C_VA_VICn, S3C_PA_HSMMCn, and so
> on), so most of the code from arch/arm/plat-s3c/ can be reused without any
> modifications. I assume that the S3C prefix would be renamed to SAMSUNG sometime
> later.

I will be working on this and hopefully have some stuff soon to try
and remove a lot of these problems. Harald and I spent some time on
this subject when we where last together.

-- 
Ben

Q:      What's a light-year?
A:      One-third less calories than a regular year.