Le 16/04/2011 09:26, Albert ARIBAUD a écrit :
> 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,
Applied to u-boot-arm/master, thanks.
Amicalement,
--
Albert.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
