From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peng Fan Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:37:27 +0800 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2] fsl: esdhc: consolidate fsl_esdhc_cfg structure In-Reply-To: References: <1458035870-770-1-git-send-email-van.freenix@gmail.com> <20160329012211.GA11150@linux-7smt.suse> Message-ID: <20160329043724.GA27378@linux-7smt.suse> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi York, On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 01:35:09AM +0000, york sun wrote: >On 03/28/2016 06:23 PM, Peng Fan wrote: >> Hi York, >> >> On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 12:33:42AM +0000, york sun wrote: >>> On 03/15/2016 03:14 AM, Peng Fan wrote: >>>> We can use phys_addr_to for esdhc_base to discard >>>> the #ifdef. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan >>>> Cc: York Sun >>>> Cc: Yangbo Lu >>>> Cc: Eric Nelson >>>> Cc: Fabio Estevam >>>> Cc: Pantelis Antoniou >>>> Cc: Tom Rini >>>> --- >>>> >>>> V2: >>>> Split this patch from the V1 patch set. >>>> >>>> include/fsl_esdhc.h | 6 +----- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/include/fsl_esdhc.h b/include/fsl_esdhc.h >>>> index 073048f..fa760a5 100644 >>>> --- a/include/fsl_esdhc.h >>>> +++ b/include/fsl_esdhc.h >>>> @@ -168,11 +168,7 @@ >>>> #define ESDHC_VENDORSPEC_VSELECT 0x00000002 /* Use 1.8V */ >>>> >>>> struct fsl_esdhc_cfg { >>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_FSL_LAYERSCAPE >>>> - u64 esdhc_base; >>>> -#else >>>> - u32 esdhc_base; >>>> -#endif >>>> + phys_addr_t esdhc_base; >>>> u32 sdhc_clk; >>>> u8 max_bus_width; >>>> struct mmc_config cfg; >>>> >>> >>> Peng, >>> >>> I thought this change is trivial and should be OK. But it turns out this change >>> brings comping warning to many PPC boards >>> >>> drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c:184:27: warning: cast to pointer from integer of >>> different size [-Wint-to-pointer-cast] >> >> You can apply https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/601919/ and retest. >> I think the reason is that to PPC 64bit, "typedef unsigned long long phys_addr_t" >> I think "esdhc_regs = (struct fsl_esdhc *)(unsigned long)(cfg->esdhc_base);" >> can fix it. >> >> Do I need to send a single V3 patch to fix the warning, or you apply the >> driver model V3 patch, if the driver model V3 can fix it? >> > >I am concerned about git bisect. It is not good to have a patch with compiling >warning. I prefer you fix it. You can first apply https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/601919/ V3 version for driver model patch. In this patch I have such code: "esdhc_regs = (struct fsl_esdhc *)(unsigned long)(cfg->esdhc_base);" If you think this line code is ok, then you can apply this current patch. If not, I think I may also fix this. If this is ok for you, no need for me to send V3 :) Thanks, Peng. > >York > >