Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 02/13] S3C64XX: Switch to use readl/writel to operate nand flash
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
On 07/10/2012 08:00 AM, Zhong Hongbo wrote:
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:
@@ -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.
Could you paste the exact output from checkpatch.pl?
-Scott
Hi Scott,
On 07/10/2012 11:36 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 07/10/2012 08:00 AM, Zhong Hongbo wrote:
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:
@@ -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.
Could you paste the exact output from checkpatch.pl?
Just redo the patch, I can not reproduce the issue. Thank you for your point.
Thanks, hongbo
-Scott
participants (2)
-
Scott Wood -
Zhong Hongbo