On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 6:11 PM Lad, Prabhakar
<prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 4:02 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 5:27 PM Lad, Prabhakar
> > <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 2:15 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 3:43 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 7:41 PM Lad, Prabhakar
> > > > > <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:43 AM Andy Shevchenko
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > > #define DEFINE_RES_NAMED(_start, _size, _name, _flags) \
> > > > > > - { \
> > > > > > + (struct resource) { \
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, that's it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > .start = (_start), \
> > > > > > .end = (_start) + (_size) - 1, \
> > > > > > .name = (_name), \
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But there are some instances which need to be touched, for example
> > > > > > vexpress-sysreg.c [1]. Are you OK with files to be changed?
> > > > >
> > > > > Nice! That's exactly my point and you can sell it to the community
> > > > > because there are already users of it like this.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I'm fine, but it seems it needs to be done treewide in one patch.
> > > > > Btw, how many of those already in use?
> > > >
> > > > Actually you don't need to change that. It's an array of resources and
> > > > everything should be kept as is there.
> > > >
> > > I do get below build failures, with the above literal change for
> > > vexpress-sysreg.c.
> > >
> > > drivers/mfd/vexpress-sysreg.c: At top level:
> > > drivers/mfd/vexpress-sysreg.c:64:37: error: initialiser element is not constant
> > > 64 | .resources = (struct resource []) {
> > > | ^
> > > drivers/mfd/vexpress-sysreg.c:64:37: note: (near initialisation for
> > > ‘vexpress_sysreg_cells[0]’)
> > Hmm... Interesting, so I suppose the fix is to drop (struct resource
> > []) parts from the driver?
> >
> A bit more than that like something below:
> - .resources = (struct resource []) {
> - DEFINE_RES_MEM_NAMED(SYS_LED, 0x4, "dat"),
> - },
> + .resources = &DEFINE_RES_MEM_NAMED(SYS_LED, 0x4, "dat"),
This is not an equivalent change.
The warning is about const qualifier. Can it rather be const struct
resource [] ?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
