yeah,i agree<br><div><br><br></div><div></div><br><pre>在2009-11-06 11:18:45,"Harald Welte" <laforge@gnumonks.org> 写道:
>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
>
>> +/* 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.
>
>> /* ETC */
>> #define S5PC100_PA_SDRAM        (0x20000000)
>> +#define S5PC1XX_PA_SDRAM        S5PC100_PA_SDRAM
>
>Again here. We already have the c100 specific define. Why add a new c1xx define?
>
>>         /* Maintainer: Byungho Min <bhmin@samsung.com> */
>> -        .phys_io        = S5PC1XX_PA_UART & 0xfff00000,
>> +        .phys_io        = S5PC100_PA_UART & 0xfff00000,
>
>this is the change I like.
>
>>         .io_pg_offst        = (((u32)S5PC1XX_VA_UART) >> 18) & 0xfffc,
>> -        .boot_params        = S5PC100_PA_SDRAM + 0x100,
>> +        .boot_params        = S5PC1XX_PA_SDRAM + 0x100,
>
>This is the wrong kind of change, from my point of view. We don't know yet
>if all future s5pc1xx products will also have the same address, do we?
>
>--
>- Harald Welte <laforge@gnumonks.org> http://laforge.gnumonks.org/
>============================================================================
>"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
> (ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)
>
>_______________________________________________
>linux-arm-kernel mailing list
>linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
>http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
</pre><br><br><span title="neteasefooter"/><hr/>
<a href="http://allyes.nie.163.com/main/adfclick?db=afanie&bid=1254,611,23&cid=145,4,1&sid=1351&show=ignore&url=http://tx2.163.com/fab.html">09年新晋3D主流网游《天下贰》,网易六年亿资打造</a>
</span>