On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:05:52 -0700 York Sun <york...@freescale.com> wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 03:03 PM, Kim Phillips wrote: > > On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:04:33 -0700 > > York Sun <york...@freescale.com> wrote: > > > >> Kim, et al., > >> > >> I know I have asked this before. Pardon me as I don't consider myself a > >> savy programmer. > >> > >> I am cleaning up the DDR driver for mpc83xx, mpc85xx and mpc86xx. The > >> question is the accetable formats of declaring and initializing variable > >> at the same time. The variables are the ccsr register pointers. I have > >> two formats here > >> > >> struct ccsr_ddr __iomem *ddr = (void *) CONFIG_FOO_ADDR; > >> struct ccsr_ddr __iomem *ddr = > >> (struct ccsr_ddr __iomem *) CONFIG_FOO_ADDR; > >> > >> You have told me the second format is preferred. I have been using this > >> format since. But in practice, the second format is often too long and I > >> have to wrap to next line. It's not a problem for new code. As I am > >> trying to cleanup the existing code, I would have to make more changes. > >> So I am back to this question. Is the first format (using void *) > >> accetable in long term? > > > > you're not running sparse, are you? :) > > > > Use 'make C=1' or 'MAKEALL -C' when building u-boot. > > > > I see what you mean. We have so many issue with existing code. Is it > practical to enforce? incrementally, i.e., for new patches, yes. The notion of a separate i/o address space is valid for checking u-boot source. If existing users want to update their code, that's fine too, they get the added benefit. Kim _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
