From owner-svn-src-head@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 29 18:27:18 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37CAA7A0; Thu, 29 May 2014 18:27:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-n.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail-n.franken.de", Issuer "Thawte DV SSL CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB83A26A4; Thu, 29 May 2014 18:27:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.200] (p508F3F42.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.143.63.66]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6C951C104F6F; Thu, 29 May 2014 20:27:14 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\)) Subject: Re: svn commit: r266083 - in head/sys/arm: arm include From: Michael Tuexen In-Reply-To: Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 20:27:13 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <201405141911.s4EJBFZZ097826@svn.freebsd.org> <537D0952.2040001@selasky.org> <7610C8E6-3F01-4317-BC1A-67645A162CD7@FreeBSD.org> <53871493.2010502@selasky.org> <9412A358-EBCB-4A5A-B728-2A15C50FC217@fh-muenster.de> To: Mark R V Murray X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.2) Cc: Hans Petter Selasky , svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 18:27:18 -0000 On 29 May 2014, at 20:15, Mark R V Murray wrote: >=20 > On 29 May 2014, at 19:13, Michael Tuexen = wrote: >=20 >>> I can make it work on RPI, but trying to find what else it = will/won=92t work on is more problematic. >> Wouldn't it require to use different registers on the RPI? This would = mean you >> would need more #ifdefs=85 >=20 > Thats the problem; too many #ifdefs. So you could just keep the code for now, but reduce the #ifdefs to the = ones you know that work. Later on, you can replace it by the driver stuff... Best regards Michael >=20 > M > --=20 > Mark R V Murray >=20 >=20 >=20