From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claudiu Manoil Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2013 12:53:07 +0300 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 7/9][v2] net: tsec: Use portable types and accessors for BDs In-Reply-To: References: <1380752101.12932.127.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <1380800932-22552-1-git-send-email-claudiu.manoil@freescale.com> <1380825428.12932.154.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <524E7BEA.2070103@freescale.com> <1380901846.7979.2.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <524EEC04.1030105@freescale.com> Message-ID: <52528483.7070401@freescale.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 10/5/2013 5:49 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Timur Tabi wrote: >> >> + out_be32(®s->tbase, (u32)&txbd[0]); >> + out_be32(®s->rbase, (u32)&rxbd[0]); >> >> &rxbd[0] is a virtual address. >> >> Doesn't rbase require a physical address? You're assuming that virt == phys. > > Also: > > - out_be32(®s->tbase, (unsigned int)(&rtx.txbd[tx_idx])); > - out_be32(®s->rbase, (unsigned int)(&rtx.rxbd[rx_idx])); > + out_be32(®s->tbase, (u32)&txbd[0]); > + out_be32(®s->rbase, (u32)&rxbd[0]); > > Are you assuming that rx_idx will always be zero in this case? > > Hi, This is just initialization code, rx_idx and tx_idx are set to 0 just 4-5 irrelevant lines above (unfortunately format-patch doesn't catch that in the patch's context). Thanks, Claudiu