Hi Tom,
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 15:39, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 12:04:40PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Use an accessor in the header file to avoid this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >
> > common/spl/spl.c | 9 +++++----
> > include/asm-generic/global_data.h | 7 +++++++
> > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/common/spl/spl.c b/common/spl/spl.c
> > index f0a90c280da..f5cef81000c 100644
> > --- a/common/spl/spl.c
> > +++ b/common/spl/spl.c
> > @@ -876,10 +876,11 @@ void board_init_r(gd_t *dummy1, ulong dummy2)
> > } else {
> > debug("Unsupported OS image.. Jumping nevertheless..\n");
> > }
> > -#if CONFIG_VAL(SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN) && !defined(CONFIG_SPL_SYS_MALLOC_SIZE)
> > - debug("SPL malloc() used 0x%lx bytes (%ld KB)\n", gd->malloc_ptr,
> > - gd->malloc_ptr / 1024);
> > -#endif
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SYS_MALLOC_F) &&
> > + !IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPL_SYS_MALLOC_SIZE))
> > + debug("SPL malloc() used 0x%lx bytes (%ld KB)\n",
> > + gd_malloc_ptr(), gd_malloc_ptr() / 1024);
> > +
> > bootstage_mark_name(get_bootstage_id(false), "end phase");
> > #ifdef CONFIG_BOOTSTAGE_STASH
> > ret = bootstage_stash((void *)CONFIG_BOOTSTAGE_STASH_ADDR,
> > diff --git a/include/asm-generic/global_data.h
> > b/include/asm-generic/global_data.h
> > index 8fc205ded1a..edf9ff6823f 100644
> > --- a/include/asm-generic/global_data.h
> > +++ b/include/asm-generic/global_data.h
> > @@ -573,6 +573,13 @@ static_assert(sizeof(struct global_data) == GD_SIZE);
> > #define gd_malloc_start() 0
> > #define gd_set_malloc_start(val)
> > #endif
> > +
> > +#if CONFIG_VAL(SYS_MALLOC_F_LEN)
> > +#define gd_malloc_ptr() gd->malloc_ptr
> > +#else
> > +#define gd_malloc_ptr() 0L
> > +#endif
> > +
> > /**
> > * enum gd_flags - global data flags
> > *
>
> This is another case where readability is not improved. I also have a
> bad feeling that changing that exact area had some unintended
> consequences from the compiler, that totally should not have happened.
> But maybe that was something in a similar code section instead.
The improvement is in the C file...here we have an accessor in the
header file as has been done elsewhere.
Do you have any more details on the problem you mention? I will align
the accessor to the struct member which should resolve it.
Regards,
Simon
