In message 46AF8CF0.7090600@googlemail.com you wrote:

Something like in attachment?

Probably not.

+/* The unnecessary pointer compare is there

• • to check for type safety (n must be 64bit)
• */

+# define do_div(n,base) ({ \

• uint32_t __base = (base); \
• uint32_t __rem; \
• (void)(((typeof((n)) *)0) == ((uint64_t *)0)); \
• if (((n) >> 32) == 0) { \

• __rem = (uint32_t)(n) % __base;		\
  

• (n) = (uint32_t)(n) / __base;		\
  

• } else \

• __rem = __div64_32(&(n), __base);	\
  

• __rem; \
• })

CodingStyle: Generally, inline functions are preferable to macros resembling functions.

Index: uboot/lib_generic/Makefile

--- uboot.orig/lib_generic/Makefile +++ uboot/lib_generic/Makefile @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ LIB = $(obj)libgeneric.a

COBJS = bzlib.o bzlib_crctable.o bzlib_decompress.o \ bzlib_randtable.o bzlib_huffman.o \

•  crc32.o ctype.o display_options.o ldiv.o sha1.o \
  

•  crc32.o ctype.o display_options.o div64.o ldiv.o sha1.o \
  

  string.o vsprintf.o zlib.o

Why should I link this code and increase the memory footprint for all boards, when 99% of them don't need this?

Rejected.

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk