On 07/31/2017 03:43 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 08/01/2017 12:20 AM, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>> On 07/31/2017 02:33 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On 07/31/2017 07:17 PM, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>>>>>> +struct anarion_qspi {
>>>>>> + struct spi_nor nor;
>>>>>> + struct device *dev;
>>>>>> + uintptr_t regbase;
>>>>>
>>>>> Should be void __iomem * I guess ?
>>>>
>>>> I chose uintptr_t as opposed to void *, because arithmetic on void * is
>>>> not valid in C. What is the right answer hen, without risking undefined
>>>> behavior?
>>>
>>> What sort of arithmetic ? It's perfectly valid in general ...
>>
>> ISO/IEC 9899:201x, Section 6.5.6, constraint(2) is not met when the one
>> of the operands to addition is a void pointer.
>> Section 6.2.5 (19) defines void to be an incomplete type.
>
> Is that something new in C 201x draft ?
C99 had similar restrictions.
> Anyway, this would mean half of the drivers are broken, so I'm not convinced.
They are. Feel free to send me a private email if you want to discuss
this further.
Alex
