On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > Dear Graeme Russ, > > In message <d66caabb0909201837g28da0ed5k6069e96775cfb...@mail.gmail.com> you > wrote: >> >> > - ecm->eedr = 0xffffffff; /* clear ecm errors */ >> > - ecm->eeer = 0xffffffff; /* enable ecm errors */ >> > + out_be32(&ecm->eedr, 0xffffffff); /* clear ecm errors */ >> > + out_be32(&ecm->eeer, 0xffffffff); /* enable ecm errors */ >> > return 0; >> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the general rule was the other >> way (i.e. the way it alreay was). See for example: > > You are wrong. We must use I/O accessors.
Thanks for the correction :) > >> http://git.denx.de/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=u-boot.git;a=commit;h=ed7a1b681de1e31d18d5b92e2767ae8df3241687 > > Ouch. This patch is clearly bloken. Sorry it escaped my attention. Hence my incorrect assumption ;) > > Using a C structure to describe the hardware is a good thing, but we > still must use I/O accessors to access the registers. > > This needs to be fixed in your code. Will do > >> This prevents, for example, accidentally writing words and longs to byte >> sized registers. > > Right. The I/O accessors still allow for strict type checking. Right, which still makes my patch better than the completely unchecked previous version of the SC520 MMCR accessors Regards, G _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
