Kumar Gala wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c index 367c7d7..3f318e0 100644 --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/fsl_elbc_nand.c @@ -718,7 +718,7 @@ static void fsl_elbc_ctrl_init(void) int board_nand_init(struct nand_chip *nand) { struct fsl_elbc_mtd *priv;
- uint32_t br, or;
- uint32_t br = 0, or = 0;
Which GCC version complains about this? Seems like it's getting worse about false positives.
@@ -737,11 +737,13 @@ int board_nand_init(struct nand_chip *nand) * if we could pass more than one datum to the NAND driver... */ for (priv->bank = 0; priv->bank < MAX_BANKS; priv->bank++) {
phys_addr_t base_addr = virt_to_phys(nand->IO_ADDR_R);br = in_be32(&elbc_ctrl->regs->bank[priv->bank].br); or = in_be32(&elbc_ctrl->regs->bank[priv->bank].or);
if ((br & BR_V) && (br & BR_MSEL) == BR_MS_FCM &&
(br & or & BR_BA) == (phys_addr_t)nand->IO_ADDR_R)
(br & or & BR_BA) == BR_PHYS_ADDR(base_addr))
ACK to go via whichever tree the BR_PHYS_ADDR patch goes through.
-Scott