Le 03/04/2011 18:35, Eric Bénard a écrit :
> diff --git a/board/eukrea/cpu9260/cpu9260.c b/board/eukrea/cpu9260/cpu9260.c
> index 61b6c33..9ec48a0 100644
> --- a/board/eukrea/cpu9260/cpu9260.c
> +++ b/board/eukrea/cpu9260/cpu9260.c
> @@ -188,26 +175,16 @@ int board_init(void)
>
> int dram_init(void)
> {
> - gd->bd->bi_dram[0].start = PHYS_SDRAM;
> - if (get_ram_size((long *) PHYS_SDRAM, PHYS_SDRAM_SIZE) !=
> - PHYS_SDRAM_SIZE)
> - return -1;
> -
> - gd->bd->bi_dram[0].size = PHYS_SDRAM_SIZE;
> + gd->ram_size = get_ram_size((volatile long *)CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_BASE,
> + CONFIG_SYS_SDRAM_SIZE);
Checkpatch warns about the volatile here.
I know the get_ram_size() prototype calls for the volatile attribute,
but what is the rationale here for this? get_ram_size() just needs the
RAM base address *value*; if it requires volatile accesses to it, it can
arrange for these inside its definition. Besides, throughout the code
base there are 19 instances of get_ram_size() callw where the argument
is cast to volatile, against 130 where it is not.
Wolfgang et al.: how about removing the 'volatile' qualifier from the
get_ram_size() prototype?
Eric: if your patch does not cause a warning without the volatile in the
call, can you update and repost it as V2?
> diff --git a/include/configs/cpu9260.h b/include/configs/cpu9260.h
> index d239423..a8ada2d 100644
> --- a/include/configs/cpu9260.h
> +++ b/include/configs/cpu9260.h
> -#define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_READY_PIN AT91_PIN_PC13
> -#define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_ENABLE_PIN AT91_PIN_PC14
> +#define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_READY_PIN AT91_PIO_PORTC, 13
> +#define CONFIG_SYS_NAND_ENABLE_PIN AT91_PIO_PORTC, 14
> -#define CONFIG_RED_LED AT91_PIN_PC11
> -#define CONFIG_GREEN_LED AT91_PIN_PC12
> -#define CONFIG_YELLOW_LED AT91_PIN_PC7
> -#define CONFIG_BLUE_LED AT91_PIN_PC9
> +#define CONFIG_RED_LED AT91_PIO_PORTC, 11
> +#define CONFIG_GREEN_LED AT91_PIO_PORTC, 12
> +#define CONFIG_YELLOW_LED AT91_PIO_PORTC, 7
> +#define CONFIG_BLUE_LED AT91_PIO_PORTC, 9
Checkpatch considers these errors. This is again a case where we'd want
it to ignore it... or reconsider this type of macro, which intends to
expand to several function arguments.
For now I'll ignore these 6 checkpatch errors.
Amicalement,
--
Albert.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
