Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/24] imx: update is_imx6ull to include i.MX6ULZ
Hi,
Am Donnerstag, 23. April 2020, 03:33:49 CEST schrieb Peng Fan:
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/24] imx: update is_imx6ull to include i.MX6ULZ
Am Mittwoch, 22. April 2020, 15:52:18 CEST schrieb Peng Fan:
Update is_imx6ull helper to include i.MX6ULZ SoC. i.MX6ULZ could share same macro, then we no need to add is_imx6ulz in various drivers.
Signed-off-by: Peng Fan peng.fan@nxp.com
arch/arm/include/asm/mach-imx/sys_proto.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach-imx/sys_proto.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach-imx/sys_proto.h index a02cd40c7d..2a997f280d 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach-imx/sys_proto.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach-imx/sys_proto.h @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ #define is_mx6sl() (is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6SL)) #define
is_mx6solo()
(is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6SOLO)) #define is_mx6ul() (is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6UL)) -#define is_mx6ull() (is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6ULL)) +#define is_mx6ull() (is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6ULL) || +is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6ULZ))
While I probably understand your intentions, I fear that it will lead to confusion when the helper's name does not reflect that more than one cpu type can match. What about introducing is_mx6ulX() to signal that the last letter is "don't care"?
Renaming the macro needs to modify drivers using this macro, this is risk to easy break existing code. I prefer to keep as is.
but when you look at the drivers using this is_mx6ull() macro, then you'll find already a bunch of other is_mx...() macros used in addition. Then it would also be possible to add the is_mx6ulz() one - it won't make the situation worse at these points. In my eyes, this is better than hiding two CPUs behind one macro.
That's fine. I'll use ulx in v2.
Thanks, Peng.
Thanks, Michael
Thanks, Peng.
Best regards, Michael
#define is_mx6ulz() (is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6ULZ)) #define is_mx6sll() (is_cpu_type(MXC_CPU_MX6SLL))