[PATCH v2 1/2] ARM: IMX5: cpuidle driver

[Yong Shen]

Hi Sascha,


> > +     local_irq_disable();
> > +     do_gettimeofday(&before);
> > +
> > +     plat_lpc = __raw_readl(MXC_CORTEXA8_PLAT_LPC) &
> > +         ~(MXC_CORTEXA8_PLAT_LPC_DSM);
>
> One thing that strikes me here is the fact that this code can probably
> run on i.MX53 aswell, right? It's only that these registers have
> different addresses on i.MX53. The MXC_ prefix is therefore not a good
> idea. Switching this to MX51_ and having an additional MX53_ register
> leads to code duplication. This shows that it's a bad idea to code
> fixed addresses in the code. We should go for base + offset instead
> so that this code will have a better start on i.MX53. This of course
> needs changes in the current crm_regs.h and probably in the i.MX51/53
> clock code.
>
Yes, for mx53, it is similar.
But for the case you are talking about, is it easier that we keep MXC_
prefix in this file and define MXC_ to MX51 or MX53 in crm_regs.h according
to which board is running?
In addition, registers for this code are not in one section, which means
many BASEx + offset there, if I understand right. Do you have a sample for
'base + offset' case? since mx53 just came in, I am not sure about such
case.

yong

>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20110216/a8359ff2/attachment-0001.html>