Re: [LinuxBIOS] [v2][PATCH] Trivial fixups for i82801xx_lpc

[Corey Osgood]

[e-mail] wrote:
> Quoting Corey Osgood :
> > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > Quoting Corey Osgood :
> > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > static void lpc_init(struct device *dev)
> > > > >  {
> > > > > uint8_t byte;
> > > > > int pwr_on = -1;
> > > > > int nmi_option;
> > > > > unsigned ich_model;
> > > >
> > > > uint_16 or u16 please
> > >
> > > I tried that originally but got a build error. That's why I used
> > > unsigned. uint_16 is defined in the actual function anyways.

Meant to comment before, oops. I meant uint16_t, of course. Not sure why
there would be build errors from that...
> > > > > #define PMBASE            0x40
> > > > > -#define PM_BASE_ADDR        0x1100
> > > > >  #define ACPI_CNTL        0x44
> > > > >  #define BIOS_CNTL        0x4E
> > > > >  #define GPIO_BASE        0x58
> > > > > -#define GPIO_BASE_ADDR        0x1180
> > > > > +#define GPIOBASE        0x48
> > > >
> > > > What's GPIO_BASE vs GPIOBASE? Better names possible?
> > >
> > > GPIOBASE is what intel calls it in the ICH6-9 datasheets.
> > > What should I name this??
> >
> > GPIOBASE makes perfect sense, the confusion is, what's the difference
> > between that and GPIO_BASE
>
> The register address 0x58 (ICH0-ICH5) vs 0x48 (ICH6-ICH9).

Okay, can we do GPIO_BASE_ICH0_5 and then GPIO_BASE_ICH6_9? And similar
for GPIO_CNTL?

After that, swear to god, done nitpicking.

Thanks,
Corey