From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Aneesh V <aneesh@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 11:01:57 +0530
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 7/8] armv7: adapt omap3 to the new cache
 maintenance framework
In-Reply-To: <20110117215511.CEFB5D1CAD5@gemini.denx.de>
References: <1293018898-13253-1-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com>
	<1293018898-13253-8-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com>
	<20110109225729.4695B127@gemini.denx.de> <4D2B1A90.9030109@ti.com>
	<20110117215511.CEFB5D1CAD5@gemini.denx.de>
Message-ID: <4D3525CD.8090001@ti.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

Dear Wolfgang,

On Tuesday 18 January 2011 03:25 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Aneesh V,
>
> In message<4D2B1A90.9030109@ti.com>  you wrote:
>>
>>>> +struct __attribute__ ((__packed__)) emu_hal_params {
>>>> +	u32 num_params;
>>>> +	u32 param1;
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> Why exactly do we need the "__attribute__ ((__packed__))" here?
>>
>> Because a pointer to it has to be passed to ROM code and ROM code
>> wouldn't expect any padding.
>
> But padding would only be needed if there were any alignment
> requirements requiring it. There are none here.

Yes. But, is that guaranteed?  I didn't want to make it compiler
dependent. Isn't it safer to use '__attribute__ ((__packed__))'

Best regards,
Aneesh