[U-Boot] Pull request: u-boot-spi/master

[Álvaro Fernández Rojas]

Hi Daniel,


El 22/01/2018 a las 21:26, Daniel Schwierzeck escribió:
>
> On 22.01.2018 18:14, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 05:49:39PM +0100, Daniel Schwierzeck wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22.01.2018 13:58, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 11:20:56AM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>
>>>>> Please pull this PR.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks!
>>>>> Jagan.
>>>>>
>>>>> The following changes since commit 98691a60abffb44303d7dae6e9e699d0daded930:
>>>>>
>>>>>    Merge git://git.denx.de/u-boot-rockchip (2018-01-09 13:28:51 -0500)
>>>>>
>>>>> are available in the git repository at:
>>>>>
>>>>>    git://git.denx.de/u-boot-spi.git master
>>>>>
>>>>> for you to fetch changes up to b23c685c6f295da3c01dd487f0e003b70299af91:
>>>>>
>>>>>    mips: bmips: enable the SPI flash on the Comtrend AR-5387un (2018-01-22 10:39:13 +0530)
>>>>>
>>>> NAK:
>>>>
>>>> commit 19e3a4856c1cba751a9ecb3931ff0d96a7f169be
>>>> Author: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari at gmail.com>
>>>> Date:   Sat Jan 20 02:11:34 2018 +0100
>>>>
>>>>      wait_bit: add 8/16/32 BE/LE versions of wait_for_bit
>>>>
>>>>      Add 8/16/32 bits and BE/LE versions of wait_for_bit.
>>>>      This is needed for reading registers that are not aligned to 32 bits, and for
>>>>      Big Endian platforms.
>>>>
>>>>      Signed-off-by: Álvaro Fernández Rojas <noltari at gmail.com>
>>>>      Reviewed-by: Daniel Schwierzeck <daniel.schwierzeck at gmail.com>
>>>>      Reviewed-by: Jagan Teki <jagan at openedev.com>
>>>>
>>>> Adds warnings on almost all platforms:
>>>> w+(ls1088ardb_qspi_SECURE_BOOT) ../include/wait_bit.h: In function ?wait_for_bit_be16?:
>>>> w+(ls1088ardb_qspi_SECURE_BOOT) ../include/wait_bit.h:76:31: warning: implicit declaration of function ?readw_be? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>>>> w+(ls1088ardb_qspi_SECURE_BOOT) ../include/wait_bit.h: In function ?wait_for_bit_be32?:         w+(ls1088ardb_qspi_SECURE_BOOT) ../include/wait_bit.h:78:31: warning: implicit declaration of function ?readl_be? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Tom, would this change to the patch be acceptable?
>>>
>>> --- a/include/wait_bit.h
>>> +++ b/include/wait_bit.h
>>> @@ -73,8 +73,12 @@ static inline int wait_for_bit_##sfx(const void *reg,			\
>>>
>>>   BUILD_WAIT_FOR_BIT(8, u8, readb)
>>>   BUILD_WAIT_FOR_BIT(le16, u16, readw)
>>> +#ifdef readw_be
>>>   BUILD_WAIT_FOR_BIT(be16, u16, readw_be)
>>> +#endif
>>>   BUILD_WAIT_FOR_BIT(le32, u32, readl)
>>> +#ifdef readl_be
>>>   BUILD_WAIT_FOR_BIT(be32, u32, readl_be)
>>> +#endif
>>>
>>>   #endif
>>>
>>> This wouldn't define wait_bit_be*() on archs which doesn't implement
>>> readw_be or readl_be.
>>>
>>> A build with the updated patch is scheduled at
>>> https://travis-ci.org/danielschwierzeck/u-boot/builds/331899381
>> That seems reasonable, thanks!
>>
> Álvaro, could you send a v10 where the patch "wait_bit: add 8/16/32
> BE/LE versions of wait_for_bit" is fixed like above? Thanks.
Sure, but I think this alternative would be much cleaner:
https://gist.github.com/Noltari/3e6ed4648b87484c73ca22e2f533f9b0

What do you think?