On 14:40 Sat 20 Nov , Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 12:30:09PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > On 09:00 Fri 19 Nov , Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > Hi J, > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 07:18:54PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > > > > introdude also some helper to manager them > > > > > > > > and add multi resource per device support > > > > > > > > ram device: use resource structure instead of memory_platform_data > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > You shouldn't use a resource_size_t type to access registers. This will > > > lead to problems when we start to support 64bit resource sizes > > no as resource_size_t is 64 bit aware > > And exactly this is the problem. void * is usually only 32bit on arm. > This will lead to compiler warnings and sparse isn't happy about > unsigned long in readl/writel anyway. IIRC on arm resource_size_t is never 64bit at least on the current ARMvx > > > >. Instead we should introduce a > > > > > > #define resource_size_to_iomem(size) (void __force __iomem *)(size) > > > > > > macro which does the conversion to a void __iomem * type. In a more > > > advanced version this could also spit a warning when the resource start > > > is bigger than a pointer type. As an additional plus we'll get rid of > > > some sparse warnings where map_base is used for readl/writel. > > we do not do in the kernel and do see the advantage here for the ressource > > in mind it's in the drivers we need to do it > > if necessary > > resource_size_t is never passed to readl/writel in the kernel. yeah but the resources are cast in the drivers Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
