From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Aneesh V <aneesh@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:42:59 +0530
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v2 13/22] omap4: add clock support
In-Reply-To: <4E003952.30901@ti.com>
References: <1298893591-17636-1-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com>
	<1305472900-4004-14-git-send-email-aneesh@ti.com>
	<4E0030F8.6030104@ti.com> <4E003952.30901@ti.com>
Message-ID: <4E00447B.9070804@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



On Tuesday 21 June 2011 11:55 AM, Aneesh V wrote:
> Dear Wolfgang,
>
> On Tuesday 21 June 2011 11:19 AM, Aneesh V wrote:
>> Dear Wolfgang,
>>
>> On Sunday 15 May 2011 08:51 PM, Aneesh V wrote:
>> [snip ..]
>>> +static const u32 clk_modules_hw_auto_essential[] = {
>>> + CM_WKUP_GPIO1_CLKCTRL,
>>> + CM_L4PER_GPIO2_CLKCTRL,
>>> + CM_L4PER_GPIO3_CLKCTRL,
>>> + CM_L4PER_GPIO4_CLKCTRL,
>>> + CM_L4PER_GPIO5_CLKCTRL,
>>> + CM_L4PER_GPIO6_CLKCTRL,
>>> + CM_MEMIF_EMIF_1_CLKCTRL,
>>> + CM_MEMIF_EMIF_2_CLKCTRL,
>>> + CM_L3INIT_HSUSBOTG_CLKCTRL,
>>> + CM_L3INIT_USBPHY_CLKCTRL,
>>> + CM_L4CFG_L4_CFG_CLKCTRL,
>>> + 0
>>> +};
>>
>> In this series you asked me to convert the base + offset mode of
>> register address definition to struct based register address
>> definition. While doing this I am facing a problem. Please note the
>> above array that contain register addresses. This is a group of
>> registers that control our clock modules. All these registers have
>> similar bit fields and they can be programmed in same manner. So, I
>> keep them in an array and pass the array to a function that iterates
>> through array and does similar processing on all the registers(see
>> below).
>>
>> I am finding it difficult to implement this using the struct based
>> approach. I tried the sample code below:
>>
>> struct my_regs_struct {
>> const unsigned int reg1;
>> const unsigned int reg2;
>> const unsigned int reg3;
>> };
>>
>> static struct my_regs_struct *const my_regs = (struct my_regs_struct
>> *)0x1000;
>>
>> static unsigned int *const reg_arr[] = {
>> &my_regs->reg1,
>> &my_regs->reg3
>> };
>
> Apologies for the hasty mail. Looks like I can solve it by doing
> something like:
>
> static unsigned int *const reg_arr[] = {
> &(((struct my_regs_struct *)0x1000)->reg1),
> &(((struct my_regs_struct *)0x1000)->reg3),
> };
>
> Analyzing this further right now. Hopefully, the issue can be solved
> cleanly.
>

Some more interesting information:

I can reproduce the problem with something as simple as this:

main.c:
const int const1 = 10;
const int const2 = 11;

int arr[] = {
	const1,
	const2
};

$ gcc main.c
main.c:5: error: initializer element is not constant
main.c:5: error: (near initialization for ?arr[0]?)
main.c:7: error: initializer element is not constant
main.c:7: error: (near initialization for ?arr[1]?)


The ARM compiler RVCT happily compiles this without an issue. GCC and
Visual C++ compilers fail!

As a result, I will have to do something like this to populate my
array:

static unsigned int *const reg_arr[] = {
	&(((struct my_regs_struct *const)OMAP4_PRCM_REG_BASE)->uart_clkctrl),
	&(((struct my_regs_struct *const)OMAP4_PRCM_REG_BASE)->i2c_clkctrl),
};

Is this acceptable?

best regards,
Aneesh