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,