[PATCH 1/8 v3] DMA: PL330: use prefix in reg names to build under x86

[Davide Ciminaghi]

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 04:35:37PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On 24 November 2012 12:33, Alessandro Rubini <rubini at 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