Yes they are good. They are in my test queue.
York
-------- Original Message -------- From: Peng Fan van.freenix@gmail.com Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 08:05 PM To: york sun york.sun@nxp.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] fsl: esdhc: consolidate fsl_esdhc_cfg structure CC: sbabic@denx.de,trini@konsulko.com,u-boot@lists.denx.de,Yangbo Lu yangbo.lu@nxp.com,Eric Nelson eric@nelint.com,Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@nxp.com,Pantelis Antoniou panto@antoniou-consulting.com
Hi York, On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 09:49:12PM -0700, York Sun wrote:
On 03/28/2016 09:44 PM, Peng Fan wrote:
Hi York,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 01:35:09AM +0000, york sun wrote:
On 03/28/2016 06:23 PM, Peng Fan wrote:
Hi York,
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:33:42AM +0000, york sun wrote:
On 03/15/2016 03:14 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
We can use phys_addr_to for esdhc_base to discard the #ifdef.
Signed-off-by: Peng Fan van.freenix@gmail.com Cc: York Sun york.sun@nxp.com Cc: Yangbo Lu yangbo.lu@nxp.com Cc: Eric Nelson eric@nelint.com Cc: Fabio Estevam fabio.estevam@nxp.com Cc: Pantelis Antoniou panto@antoniou-consulting.com Cc: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com
V2: Split this patch from the V1 patch set.
include/fsl_esdhc.h | 6 +----- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/fsl_esdhc.h b/include/fsl_esdhc.h index 073048f..fa760a5 100644 --- a/include/fsl_esdhc.h +++ b/include/fsl_esdhc.h @@ -168,11 +168,7 @@ #define ESDHC_VENDORSPEC_VSELECT 0x00000002 /* Use 1.8V */
struct fsl_esdhc_cfg { -#ifdef CONFIG_FSL_LAYERSCAPE
- u64 esdhc_base;
-#else
- u32 esdhc_base;
-#endif
- phys_addr_t esdhc_base;
u32 sdhc_clk; u8 max_bus_width; struct mmc_config cfg;
Peng,
I thought this change is trivial and should be OK. But it turns out this change brings comping warning to many PPC boards
drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c:184:27: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast]
You can apply https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/601919/ and retest. I think the reason is that to PPC 64bit, "typedef unsigned long long phys_addr_t" I think "esdhc_regs = (struct fsl_esdhc *)(unsigned long)(cfg->esdhc_base);" can fix it.
Do I need to send a single V3 patch to fix the warning, or you apply the driver model V3 patch, if the driver model V3 can fix it?
I am concerned about git bisect. It is not good to have a patch with compiling warning. I prefer you fix it.
You can first apply https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/601919/ V3 version for driver model patch. In this patch I have such code: "esdhc_regs = (struct fsl_esdhc *)(unsigned long)(cfg->esdhc_base);" If you think this line code is ok, then you can apply this current patch. If not, I think I may also fix this.
If this is ok for you, no need for me to send V3 :)
Will try tomorrow.
Is there any update on this? If this patch with the driver model patch are ok in your side, will you pick the two patches?
Thanks, Peng.
York