[U-Boot] [PATCH V2] fsl: esdhc: consolidate fsl_esdhc_cfg structure

[York Sun]

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 at gmail.com>
>>>>> Cc: York Sun <york.sun at nxp.com>
>>>>> Cc: Yangbo Lu <yangbo.lu at nxp.com>
>>>>> Cc: Eric Nelson <eric at nelint.com>
>>>>> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam at nxp.com>
>>>>> Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <panto at antoniou-consulting.com>
>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini at 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