Hi York,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:33:42AM +0000, york sun wrote:
>On 03/15/2016 03:14 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
>> We can use phys_addr_to for esdhc_base to discard
>> the #ifdef.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <van.free...@gmail.com>
>> Cc: York Sun <york....@nxp.com>
>> Cc: Yangbo Lu <yangbo...@nxp.com>
>> Cc: Eric Nelson <e...@nelint.com>
>> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.este...@nxp.com>
>> Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <pa...@antoniou-consulting.com>
>> Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
>> ---
>>
>> V2:
>> Split this patch from the V1 patch set.
>>
>> include/fsl_esdhc.h | 6 +-----
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/fsl_esdhc.h b/include/fsl_esdhc.h
>> index 073048f..fa760a5 100644
>> --- a/include/fsl_esdhc.h
>> +++ b/include/fsl_esdhc.h
>> @@ -168,11 +168,7 @@
>> #define ESDHC_VENDORSPEC_VSELECT 0x00000002 /* Use 1.8V */
>>
>> struct fsl_esdhc_cfg {
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_FSL_LAYERSCAPE
>> - u64 esdhc_base;
>> -#else
>> - u32 esdhc_base;
>> -#endif
>> + phys_addr_t esdhc_base;
>> u32 sdhc_clk;
>> u8 max_bus_width;
>> struct mmc_config cfg;
>>
>
>Peng,
>
>I thought this change is trivial and should be OK. But it turns out this change
>brings comping warning to many PPC boards
>
>drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c:184:27: warning: cast to pointer from integer of
>different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
You can apply https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/601919/ and retest.
I think the reason is that to PPC 64bit, "typedef unsigned long long
phys_addr_t"
I think "esdhc_regs = (struct fsl_esdhc *)(unsigned long)(cfg->esdhc_base);"
can fix it.
Do I need to send a single V3 patch to fix the warning, or you apply the
driver model V3 patch, if the driver model V3 can fix it?
Regards,
Peng.
>
>For assignment like this
>
>struct fsl_esdhc *regs = (struct fsl_esdhc *)cfg->esdhc_base;
>
>The phys_addr is not u32 for many targets.
>
>York
>
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
