ks8695_reg.h

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <20060923192530.GA22568 at ci0.org>
            mlfbsd <mlfbsd at ci0.org> writes:
: Hi Gardner,
: 
: On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 03:10:07PM -0400, Gardner Bell wrote:
: > Hello everyone,
: > 
: > I'm presently working on the KS8695 registers header file and am
: > curious what I should and should not include in this file.  At the
: > moment I have included almost every register that the data sheets
: > mention.  Is this a good idea, or should I make separate header files
: > for things like the UART and memory controller registers?  I've
: > included a copy of what I have done so far.  Any help and or
: > recommendations you can offer, particularly on my naming conventions is
: > most welcome.
: > 
: 
: Great to hear !
: I think defining all the registers is a good thing, as you can't always guess
: which one you would use.
: If when you'll define each individual bits it becomes to big, you may want to
: do a seperate file for the UART, but I think the others can stay here.
: Oh and I see nothing wrong with your naming convention :)

As I write the drivers, I tend to define the register sets to keep
things compartementalized.  If there's any chance at all that these
devices will appear in another SoC is another reason to split them
out.  This is especially true if the devices can appear at different
addresses on the different parts.

For the atmel stuff that we've done, it turns out that the same
devices that we have drivers for on the at91/arm side will be useful
if we ever do a Atmel AVR32 port.  The AT91RM9200 has the devices at
one set of addresses, but the AT91SAM9260 or AT91SAM9261 have them
located elsewhere.  I've not looked at the ATR0663 with built-in GPS,
but that device was just listed this month :-).

Warner