[PATCH 07/24] imx: update is_imx6ull to include i.MX6ULZ

[Peng Fan]

> Subject: RE: [PATCH 07/24] imx: update is_imx6ull to include i.MX6ULZ
> 
> > 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 at 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.

After a check, there is lots places to change. I would keep v1.

There will no more ull variants. ull is superset of ulz,
only when need to handle ulz specific things, need to use
is_mx6ulz.

Thanks,
Peng.

> 
> 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))
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >