[PATCH 5/8] xhci: mediatek: Add support for MTK xHCI host controller
sjg at chromium.org
Tue Mar 31 01:31:16 CEST 2020
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 at 09:34, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> On 3/22/20 4:17 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Marek,
> > On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 20:15, Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de> wrote:
> >> On 3/22/20 3:08 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>> Hi Marek,
> >> Hi,
> >>> I think at this point we've covered all the ground and mentioned the
> >>> pros and cons of each method, so I'll leave the discussion where it
> >>> is.
> >> Great, so let's remove the struct-based access from the driver and use
> >> regular #define REGISTER 0xoffset.
> > I think any individual decision depends on the pros and cons we
> > outlined in our discussion. I don't have any information to suggest
> > that the Mediatek XHCI driver has any of the variations you talked
> > about in your worst-case scenarios, so I can't comment on that. I am
> > more concerned about this as a general rule as I feel that the
> > struct-based approach is generally best for U-Boot, except for the
> > cases you highlighted:
> > - where the registers appear at different offsets in different
> > hardware revisions served by the same driver
> > - where the driver only uses a small subset of the registers and it is
> > not worth defining a struct to cover them all, with associated empty
> > regions, etc.
> > Anything else?
> It's also very difficult to easily figure out the address of a register
> that's buried somewhere down in a long structure, possibly with embedded
OK I have updated the coding style page with all of this.
More information about the U-Boot