[PATCH V2 5/6] x86: add CONFIG_ARM_AMBA, selected by STA2X11

[Jassi Brar]

On 1 July 2012 17:40, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 05:28:16PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On 1 July 2012 16:29, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:44:01PM +0200, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
>> >> How should I address the problem? (original code, published on
>> >> sourceforge was simply replicating a number of amba drivers into pci
>> >> drivers, but I don't think massive code duplication is ever sensible,
>> >> thus I preferred to reuse the existing drivers).
>> >
>> > I think the answer is... those primecell drivers need fixing in some way.
>> > Re-defining CS, DS and ES in drivers is rather silly given that they're
>> > x86 segment register names - so if PL330 can be fixed to make its names
>> > more specific, that sorts it out.
>> >
>> I am OK prefixing the regs with PL330_ or somesuch.
>>
>> The CS, DS and ES regs were named so as to match exactly the
>> terminology of the PL330 manual. So apparently even the ARM Ltd didn't
>> imagine ARM and X86 galaxies colliding so soon :)
>
> Whatever it says in documentation is neither here nor there.  We're humans,
> we can re-interpret, and we are capable of adding prefixes to names when
> they're stupidly chosen.
>
> Notice how I added MMCI_ and MCI_ to the register definitions for PL180
> for example.  I always do that kind of thing as a rule to avoid these kinds
> of problems right from the outset, and I don't understand why others don't
> do the same.  We've been through soo many "this symbol clashes with
> something else in the kernel tree" now that we really should be doing this
> automatically, and not waiting for the clash to happen.
>
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.

Thanks.