Hi,
On 21 January 2015 at 04:09, Peng Fan <peng....@freescale.com> wrote:
> Abstracting dev_get_addr can improve drivers that want to
> get device's address.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng....@freescale.com>
> ---
> drivers/core/device.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/core/device.c b/drivers/core/device.c
> index 963b16f..0ba5c76 100644
> --- a/drivers/core/device.c
> +++ b/drivers/core/device.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> #include <common.h>
> #include <fdtdec.h>
> #include <malloc.h>
> +#include <libfdt.h>
> #include <dm/device.h>
> #include <dm/device-internal.h>
> #include <dm/lists.h>
> @@ -390,3 +391,21 @@ ulong dev_get_of_data(struct udevice *dev)
> {
> return dev->of_id->data;
> }
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF_CONTROL
> +void *dev_get_addr(struct udevice *dev)
My approach so far has been to use a ulong for the device address
(e.g. in platform data) and only use a pointer when we know the type
(e.g. struct disp_ctlr *), typically in driver-private data.
So do you think it would be better to return FDT_ADDR_T_NONE?
> +{
> + fdt_addr_t addr;
> +
> + addr = fdtdec_get_addr(gd->fdt_blob, dev->of_offset, "reg");
> + if (addr == FDT_ADDR_T_NONE)
> + return NULL;
> + else
> + return (void *)addr;
> +}
> +#else
> +void *dev_get_addr(struct udevice *dev)
> +{
> + return NULL;
> +}
> +#endif
> --
> 1.8.4
>
>
Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
