On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:36:51AM +0100, Belisko Marek wrote: > 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) ((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. I have a better feeling letting it in. There may be no different address spaces on Arm, but there are for exmample on x86. You can simply do a #define __iomem in include/linux/compiler.h to silence these kinds of warnings temporarily if you are not interested. I agree that at least on Arm these warnings will not reveal any real bugs. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
