[U-Boot] [PATCH] mmc: fsl_esdhc fix register offset

[Pantelis Antoniou]

Hi Peng,


> On Mar 11, 2015, at 04:17 , Peng Fan <Peng.Fan at freescale.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Marek
> 
> On 3/11/2015 10:03 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 11, 2015 at 01:58:37 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
>>> Hi, Marek
>> Hi!
>> 
>>> On 3/10/2015 9:45 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 08:35:46 AM, Peng Fan wrote:
>>>>> Commit f022d36e8a4517b2a9d25ff2d75bd2459d0c68b1 introduces
>>>>> error register offset.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Change the "char reserved3[59]" to "char reserved3[56]".
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <Peng.Fan at freescale.com>
>>>> This should probably be applied to 2015.04 .
>>>> 
>>>> What are the symptoms of this bug please ?
>>> I just found the reserved3 size is wrong, did not do test.
>>>  From the driver, only the entry 'scr' of fsl_esdhc below reserved3 is
>>> used, so the offset of scr is wrong if using `char reserved3[59]`
>> Uh, is the patch tested at all on real hardware ?
> Still not test on real hardware. From commit f022d36e8a4517b2a9d25ff2d75bd2459d0c68b1,
> "
>        uint    adsaddr;        /* ADMA system address register */
> -       char    reserved2[160]; /* reserved */
> +       char    reserved2[100]; /* reserved */
> +       uint    vendorspec;     /* Vendor Specific register */
> +       char    reserved3[59];  /* reserved */
>        uint    hostver;        /* Host controller version register */
> "
> It's clear that 160 bytes does not equal with (100 + 4 + 59)bytes.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Marek Vasut
> Regards,
> Peng.

Although I agree with fixing this, I’m kinda scared about how fragile
structs for describing hardware registers are.

But we’re stuck with it I guess.

Regards

— Pantelis