On 8/3/2013 9:47 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
Dear Troy Kisky,
[...]
Why is there a union ? It looks to me like you just want to access the same variable with 2 naming strategies.
That is correct. I can either pass it further into functions as the struct mxs_register_32 name_reg or I can directly access it as name_set/_clr/_tog . Works just fine.
I never said it didn't work, obviously it does.
Best regards, Marek Vasut
There may be code that you can point at that would make this useful, but I have a hard time envisioning it. The code I added, I know doesn't need a union, and I bet most of the other variable accesses don't need a union. That's why I asked if you'd like me to attempt to clean it up (always access thru struct, ie replace name_set with name.set).
No, I want to keep this as-is. Especially because the MX28 has the registers named exactly by this scheme.
Exactly matching documentation is a good advantage.
I don't want to change the code I added to use this.
Please do, I do not want a duplicit implementation of these register structures in the tree.
I can see a small advantage in consistency with the mx28.
THe MX6 uses many IP blocks from MX28 -- APBH DMA, NAND, USB -- to name a few. Keeping mx28 and mx6 aligned is more than helpful.
Best regards, Marek Vasut
Marek, I really appreciate your willingness to explain your reasoning. Though I wouldn't do this without prompting, perhaps my dislike of unions is a bit irrational. But since there are also many other places where this change could be made (grep _tog in arch-mx6/crm_regs.h, imx-regs.h,) I'd like Stefano to say he is OK with using mxs_reg_32 and doesn't share my opinion and doesn't want to rename it to something else. After all, you're talking about removing a structure with only 4 members, not a great amount of duplication.
Troy