[U-Boot] [PATCH v3 1/4] dm: introduce dev_get_addr interface

[Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>]

Hi,

On 21 January 2015 at 04:09, Peng Fan <Peng.Fan@freescale.com> wrote:
> Abstracting dev_get_addr can improve drivers that want to
> get device's address.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <Peng.Fan@freescale.com>
> ---
>  drivers/core/device.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/core/device.c b/drivers/core/device.c
> index 963b16f..0ba5c76 100644
> --- a/drivers/core/device.c
> +++ b/drivers/core/device.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
>  #include <common.h>
>  #include <fdtdec.h>
>  #include <malloc.h>
> +#include <libfdt.h>
>  #include <dm/device.h>
>  #include <dm/device-internal.h>
>  #include <dm/lists.h>
> @@ -390,3 +391,21 @@ ulong dev_get_of_data(struct udevice *dev)
>  {
>         return dev->of_id->data;
>  }
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_OF_CONTROL
> +void *dev_get_addr(struct udevice *dev)

My approach so far has been to use a ulong for the device address
(e.g. in platform data) and only use a pointer when we know the type
(e.g. struct disp_ctlr *), typically in driver-private data.

So do you think it would be better to return FDT_ADDR_T_NONE?

> +{
> +       fdt_addr_t addr;
> +
> +       addr = fdtdec_get_addr(gd->fdt_blob, dev->of_offset, "reg");
> +       if (addr == FDT_ADDR_T_NONE)
> +               return NULL;
> +       else
> +               return (void *)addr;
> +}
> +#else
> +void *dev_get_addr(struct udevice *dev)
> +{
> +       return NULL;
> +}
> +#endif
> --
> 1.8.4
>
>

Regards,
Simon