Hi York,
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 09:49:12PM -0700, York Sun wrote:
>On 03/28/2016 09:44 PM, Peng Fan wrote:
>> Hi York,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 01:35:09AM +0000, york sun wrote:
>>> On 03/28/2016 06:23 PM, Peng Fan wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am concerned about git bisect. It is not good to have a patch with
>>> compiling
>>> warning. I prefer you fix it.
>>
>> You can first apply https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/601919/ V3 version
>> for driver model patch. In this patch I have such code:
>> "esdhc_regs = (struct fsl_esdhc *)(unsigned long)(cfg->esdhc_base);"
>> If you think this line code is ok, then you can apply this current patch.
>> If not, I think I may also fix this.
>>
>> If this is ok for you, no need for me to send V3 :)
>>
>
>Will try tomorrow.
Is there any update on this? If this patch with the driver model patch are
ok in your side, will you pick the two patches?
Thanks,
Peng.
>
>York
>
>
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
