On 07/10/2012 08:29 PM, Zhong Hongbo wrote:
> On 07/10/2012 06:19 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On 07/07/2012 04:57 AM, Zhong Hongbo wrote:
>>> +static inline unsigned int s3c64xx_get_base_nand(void)
>>> +{
>>> + return ELFIN_NAND_BASE;
>>> +}
>>
>> unsigned long or uintptr_t would be more appropriate, even if U-Boot is
>> unlikely to be 64-bit any time soon.
>
> Ok, I will fix it in V2.
>
> Thanks,
> hongbo
>>
>> Or better, "struct s3c64xx_nand *".
>>
>>> @@ -89,15 +96,16 @@ static void s3c_nand_select_chip(struct mtd_info *mtd,
>>> int chip)
>>> */
>>> static void s3c_nand_hwcontrol(struct mtd_info *mtd, int cmd, unsigned int
>>> ctrl)
>>> {
>>> + struct s3c64xx_nand *const nand = s3c_get_base_nand();
>>
>> Is there any benefit to declaring local variables const like this?
>
> I reference the nand driver of S5PXX CPU. So ...
Sorry, I make a mistake, The S5PXX have not nand flash support. When i
do the patch, I use the format as following：
struct s3c64xx_nand *nand = s3c_get_base_nand();
But when I use checkpatch.pl script to check the patch. more and more
waring about the line, it said that you should add 'const' before nand
variable.
Thanks,
hongbo
>
> Why
>> this one and not all the others that never get altered?
>
> Ok, I will change it. And i just found the S3c64XX is orphaned board.
> So Thanks you for the foucus it!
>
> Thanks,
> hongbo
>>
>> -Scott
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
