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