On Wed, 27 Sep 2023 17:28:51 -0600 Sam Edwards cfsworks@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/27/23 10:32, Andre Przywara wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:34:20 -0700 Sam Edwards cfsworks@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sam,
Hi Andre,
Mmh, I didn't find a better solution than keeping this in.
I'll keep it if your R528 v2 doesn't find some other way to address it.
+#endif +#if defined(SUNXI_CPUX_BASE) && defined(SUNXI_CPUCFG_BASE) +#undef SUNXI_CPUCFG_BASE +#define SUNXI_CPUCFG_BASE SUNXI_CPUX_BASE
So what's the story with this? Do we name this differently (SUNXI_CPUX_BASE) because the IP block is different from the other SoCs? Or is there another SUNXI_CPUCFG IP block on the R528/T113s SoCs?
If not, I think we should use the SUNXI_CPUCFG_BASE name directly in cpu_sunxi_ncat2.h, as we never claimed that same names for some MMIO address blocks means they are compatible.
Please let me know if I miss something.
That's just for compatibility with R528 series v1. It's expected that you'll rename it to SUNXI_CPUCFG_BASE for v2. The preprocessor trickery looks for *both* being defined and applies the update. The rest of the code proceeds using SUNXI_CPUCFG_BASE. (Keep in mind this is particular patch is a hack patch, it's not considered for inclusion.)
Yes, I got this, but surely the expectation is that those fixes should not be needed anymore after a v2 of the R528 support series, right? Which I am preparing as we speak, so I am supposed to fix them there, and just wanted to double check whether my solution is in line with what you had in mind. After all you seem to be deeper into this CPUCFG stuff than I am.
Cheers, Andre