Re: [PATCH 2/7] Split S3C generic and S3C24xx specific code

From: Alexey Galakhov <agalakhov@gmail.com>
To: Juergen Beisert <jbe@pengutronix.de>
Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] Split S3C generic and S3C24xx specific code
Date: Fri, 18 May 2012 12:49:25 +0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CA+LT+-QJift5r5cBk6KruuXA1WBZKfTRGpv0Grr83+npmw+jUw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201205172149.21791.jbe@pengutronix.de>

> Mostly a matter of taste. But sometimes these functions should use a common
> name: when they are used by a shared driver.
> If you call a S3C2440 related function by a S3C2440 related driver or board
> file, we should use a SoC specific name. When we call a function from a
> driver used for S3C2440 *and* S3C6410 it should use a non SoC specific name.
> This is a "should" and I fear my S3C24xx code is not perfect in this way.

What if...

int s3c24xx_get_pclk(void);
int s3c64xx_get_pclk_msys(void);
int s3c64xx_get_pclk_psys(void);

And in some driver:

#ifdef ...
    x = s3c24xx_get_pclk();
#else
    x = s3c64xx_get_pclk_msys();
#endif

In some other driver:

#ifdef ...
    x = s3c24xx_get_pclk();
#else
    x = s3c64xx_get_pclk_psys();
#endif

Ho to do that correctly? Right now I prefer that way:

int s3c_get_some_driver_clk(void);
defined somewhere in arch/***

Regards.
--
Alex

_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox