Hi Jean-Michel & Geert,
jeanmichel.hautbois@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:05:28 +0200:
Add a few definitions, as the base address for the NFC for the M5441x.
Signed-off-by: Jean-Michel Hautbois <jeanmichel.hautbois@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/m68k/include/asm/m5441xsim.h | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/m68k/include/asm/m5441xsim.h b/arch/m68k/include/asm/m5441xsim.h
index f48cf63bd782..d4ee1eab7c4a 100644
--- a/arch/m68k/include/asm/m5441xsim.h
+++ b/arch/m68k/include/asm/m5441xsim.h
@@ -99,6 +99,7 @@
#define MCFINT2_PIT1 14
#define MCFINT2_PIT2 15
#define MCFINT2_PIT3 16
+#define MCFINT2_NFC 25
#define MCFINT2_RTC 26
/*
@@ -333,4 +334,10 @@
#define MCF_IRQ_BOFF1 (MCFINT1_VECBASE + MCFINT1_FLEXCAN1_BOFF)
#define MCF_IRQ_ERR1 (MCFINT1_VECBASE + MCFINT1_FLEXCAN1_ERR)
+/*
+ * Flash module
+ */
+#define MCF_NFC_BASE 0xfc0fc000
+#define MCF_NFC_SIZE (0xfc0fff3b - 0xfc0fc000)
+#define MCF_NFC_ISR (MCFINT2_VECBASE + MCFINT2_NFC)
I'm sorry but this feels really backwards. Platform data as C
structures are already legacy, but defining these information in
some arch headers and using them directly from drivers really seems
even "wronger" to me. What's the mid/long term plan for this? If the
platforms are still in use today and need to be maintained, why not
finally enabling device tree support? I know it's harder to do than to
say, but I'd like some really good explanation on why we should accept
to do this in 2024 because it feels rather inadequate.