From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Matthias Fuchs <matthias.fuchs@esd-electronics.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 18:12:38 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] possible ELDK4 gcc compiler bug
In-Reply-To: <29294F14-A88D-4027-A941-B5AF3DE19B87@gmail.com>
References: <200612071721.10783.matthias.fuchs@esd-electronics.com>
	<200612071728.30527.matthias.fuchs@esd-electronics.com>
	<29294F14-A88D-4027-A941-B5AF3DE19B87@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200612071812.39035.matthias.fuchs@esd-electronics.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

On Thursday 07 December 2006 17:38, Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> 
> But you should really be using accessors...
You might be right, but I really like to lay a struct over a IO-controllers 
registers.

Do so with accessors result in code like this (still missing some casts):

out32(&(fpga->fifo[i].ctrl), in32(&(fpga->fifo[i].ctrl)) | 0x8000);

Is this really recommended?

For simple IO operations 

out32(FPGA_FIFO_CTRL, in32(FPGA_FIFO_CTRL) | 0x8000);

is fine. But with a more complex register layout like this:

struct pmc405v2_fpga_s {
????????volatile u32 ctrl;
????????volatile u32 status;
????????volatile u32 test1;
????????volatile u32 test2;
????????u32 pad1[0x60 / sizeof(u32) - 4];
????????volatile u32 hostctrl; ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? /* 0x0060 */
????????u32 pad2[0x20 / sizeof(u32) - 1];
????????struct pmc405v2_fifo_s fifo[FIFO_COUNT]; /* 0x0080..0x009f */
};

It results in ugly code.

Matthias

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dipl.-Ing. Matthias Fuchs             esd electronic system design gmbh
http://www.esd-electronics.com                    Vahrenwalder Str. 207
phone: +49-511-37298-0, fax: -68                30165 Hannover, Germany
-----------------------------------------------------------------------