XIP_MAIN_BASE seems like redundant/deprecated name, since we have XIP_BASE

[d-c-d]

It appears that if two variables have the same value there should be guidance as to when each should be used.
There is no XIP_MAIN_BASE for the rp20350, so it would be helpful to document if it is deprecated, or just left around for the bootrom and the rp2040 xip_alias_check_addr function

in src/rp2040/hardware_regs/include/hardware/regs/addressmap.h

#define XIP_BASE _u(0x10000000)
#define XIP_MAIN_BASE _u(0x10000000)

[kilograham]

@matiasilva did this change by mistake from RP2040 to RP2350?

[kilograham]

ah actually i guess maybe it was vestigial in RP2040

[lurch]

See also sections 2.2.2 in https://datasheets.raspberrypi.com/rp2040/rp2040-datasheet.pdf and https://datasheets.raspberrypi.com/rp2350/rp2350-datasheet.pdf
Interestingly, XIP_MAIN_BASE doesn't appear at all in either PDF.

Although I guess for consistency perhaps it's worth modifying address_mapped.h to use XIP_BASE instead of XIP_MAIN_BASE ?

$ git grep XIP_MAIN_BASE
src/rp2040/hardware_regs/include/hardware/regs/addressmap.h:#define XIP_MAIN_BASE _u(0x10000000)
src/rp2_common/hardware_base/include/hardware/address_mapped.h:    valid_params_if(ADDRESS_ALIAS, rc >= XIP_MAIN_BASE && rc < XIP_NOALLOC_BASE);

[matiasilva]

Internal filtering was added to remove XIP_MAIN0_BASE and XIP_MAIN1_BASE from RP2350, I imagine this was not added for RP2040. If we filter on RP2040, we'd need to replace any usage of it.

[lurch]

If we filter on RP2040, we'd need to replace any usage of it.

Perhaps we'd also need to add a #define XIP_MAIN_BASE XIP_BASE for backwards-compatibility, so that we don't accidentally break any 3rd-party code that might have been using XIP_MAIN_BASE ?

[kilograham]

let's just comment the one in RP2040 to say it is vestigial; i'll take that

[kilograham]

duh, that is auto-generated - i'll move this into a later release