Hi, On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Marek, > > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 03:20:47PM +0100, Belisko Marek wrote: >> Hi, >> >> barebox compilation with C=1 produce a lot of sparse warnings. >> Mainly concerning __iomem problems with readb() and similar functions. >> >> Make it sense to take care or just could be omitted? > > I think it makes sense to work on this. Then we can see the useful > warnings buried under the __iomem warnings. > > I had the idea of adding a > > #define IOMEM(addr)    Â((void __force __iomem *)(addr)) > > and use it where appropriate. Maybe stupid question but couldn't be __iomem mechanism removed completely? Do we need to check for different address_space? In my opinion it makes no sense in barebox. > > Sascha > > -- > Pengutronix e.K.              |               | > Industrial Linux Solutions         | http://www.pengutronix.de/ Â| > Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0  Â| > Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686      | Fax:  +49-5121-206917-5555 | > thanks, marek -- as simple and primitive as possible ------------------------------------------------- Marek Belisko - OPEN-NANDRA Freelance Developer Ruska Nova Ves 219 | Presov, 08005 Slovak Republic Tel: +421 915 052 184 skype: marekwhite icq: 290551086 web: http://open-nandra.com _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
