| Message ID | 1458035870-770-1-git-send-email-van.freenix@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Delegated to: | York Sun |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 05:57:50PM +0800, Peng Fan wrote: > We can use phys_addr_to for esdhc_base to discard > the #ifdef. > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <van.freenix@gmail.com> > Cc: York Sun <york.sun@nxp.com> > Cc: Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@nxp.com> > Cc: Eric Nelson <eric@nelint.com> > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com> > Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> > Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
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 <van.freenix@gmail.com> > Cc: York Sun <york.sun@nxp.com> > Cc: Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@nxp.com> > Cc: Eric Nelson <eric@nelint.com> > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com> > Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> > Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> > --- > > 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] For assignment like this struct fsl_esdhc *regs = (struct fsl_esdhc *)cfg->esdhc_base; The phys_addr is not u32 for many targets. York
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 <van.freenix@gmail.com> >> Cc: York Sun <york.sun@nxp.com> >> Cc: Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@nxp.com> >> Cc: Eric Nelson <eric@nelint.com> >> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com> >> Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> >> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> >> --- >> >> 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? Regards, Peng. > >For assignment like this > >struct fsl_esdhc *regs = (struct fsl_esdhc *)cfg->esdhc_base; > >The phys_addr is not u32 for many targets. > >York >
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 <van.freenix@gmail.com> >>> Cc: York Sun <york.sun@nxp.com> >>> Cc: Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@nxp.com> >>> Cc: Eric Nelson <eric@nelint.com> >>> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com> >>> Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> >>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> >>> --- >>> >>> 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. York
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 <van.freenix@gmail.com> >>>> Cc: York Sun <york.sun@nxp.com> >>>> Cc: Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@nxp.com> >>>> Cc: Eric Nelson <eric@nelint.com> >>>> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com> >>>> Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> >>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> 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 > >
On 03/28/2016 09:44 PM, Peng Fan wrote: > 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 <van.freenix@gmail.com> >>>>> Cc: York Sun <york.sun@nxp.com> >>>>> Cc: Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@nxp.com> >>>>> Cc: Eric Nelson <eric@nelint.com> >>>>> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com> >>>>> Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> >>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> 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 :) > Will try tomorrow. York
Hi York, On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 09:49:12PM -0700, York Sun wrote: >On 03/28/2016 09:44 PM, Peng Fan wrote: >> 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 <van.freenix@gmail.com> >>>>>> Cc: York Sun <york.sun@nxp.com> >>>>>> Cc: Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@nxp.com> >>>>>> Cc: Eric Nelson <eric@nelint.com> >>>>>> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com> >>>>>> Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> >>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 :) >> > >Will try tomorrow. Is there any update on this? If this patch with the driver model patch are ok in your side, will you pick the two patches? Thanks, Peng. > >York > >
Yes they are good. They are in my test queue. York -------- Original Message -------- From: Peng Fan <van.freenix@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2016 08:05 PM To: york sun <york.sun@nxp.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] fsl: esdhc: consolidate fsl_esdhc_cfg structure CC: sbabic@denx.de,trini@konsulko.com,u-boot@lists.denx.de,Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@nxp.com>,Eric Nelson <eric@nelint.com>,Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com>,Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> Hi York, On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 09:49:12PM -0700, York Sun wrote: >On 03/28/2016 09:44 PM, Peng Fan wrote: >> 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 <van.freenix@gmail.com> >>>>>> Cc: York Sun <york.sun@nxp.com> >>>>>> Cc: Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@nxp.com> >>>>>> Cc: Eric Nelson <eric@nelint.com> >>>>>> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com> >>>>>> Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> >>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 :) >> > >Will try tomorrow. Is there any update on this? If this patch with the driver model patch are ok in your side, will you pick the two patches? Thanks, Peng. > >York > >
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 <van.freenix@gmail.com> > Cc: York Sun <york.sun@nxp.com> > Cc: Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@nxp.com> > Cc: Eric Nelson <eric@nelint.com> > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com> > Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> > Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> > --- > > V2: > Split this patch from the V1 patch set. > > include/fsl_esdhc.h | 6 +----- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > Applied to u-boot-fsl-qoriq master. Awaiting upstream. Thanks. York
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;
We can use phys_addr_to for esdhc_base to discard the #ifdef. Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <van.freenix@gmail.com> Cc: York Sun <york.sun@nxp.com> Cc: Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu@nxp.com> Cc: Eric Nelson <eric@nelint.com> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com> Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com> Cc: Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> --- V2: Split this patch from the V1 patch set. include/fsl_esdhc.h | 6 +----- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)