From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 14:36:00 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] ARM: cfi_flash: Fix unaligned accesses to cfi_qry structure In-Reply-To: <1368180838-25346-1-git-send-email-yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> References: <1367228070-6351-1-git-send-email-andrew_gabbasov@mentor.com> <1368180838-25346-1-git-send-email-yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> Message-ID: <201305101436.00589.marex@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hello Masahiro-san, > Dear Andrew Gabbasov, This way of starting emails seems to be dangerously widely adopted ;-D > Your patch seems to newly generate the following warning and error, > because your patch is changing the type of 'qry->max_buf_write_size' from > u16 to u8[2]. > > > cfi_flash.c:2038:33: warning: comparison between pointer and integer > > [enabled by default] cfi_flash.c:2046:27: error: incompatible types when > > assigning to type 'u8[2]' from type 'int' Good find. > By the way, I also had this unalignment access problem for my board. > Before finding your patch, I was thinking another way to fix this problem. > > My idea is to just use 'get_unaligned' and 'put_unaligned' functions > instead of introducing special macros. > With this way, we don't need to change the fields of struct cfi_qry. I think we should make sure to use natural alignment as much as possible, really. I'm keeping Albert in CC because this is his turf. > If you fix the above problem, I think your patch will be fine. > But I am wondering which way is more smart. > > Best regards, > Masahiro Yamada [...] Best regards, Marek Vasut