From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 17:40:45 +0200
Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH] dm: core: Add dev_get_addr_ptr() to return a
 pointer to the reg address
In-Reply-To: <CAPnjgZ0n09Q0kHf7trtc1B-0TctHeQw95uhH8PnenTD4p4w=6g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1461168496-24824-1-git-send-email-sr@denx.de>
 <CAPnjgZ0DzbFWpcjhwDSY7-jmN_9JWwWf=6SVZwM1TXY26-=c3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPnjgZ1=uc4X3tM9EO4p_cyCPr9ssTNcN8n_J5Wde5FFhTde6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEUhbmXY-N5Cipo5cBQ_Yt1XFbype=knoUxb3qKn3LLs-Y1ayg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPnjgZ0n09Q0kHf7trtc1B-0TctHeQw95uhH8PnenTD4p4w=6g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <572E0C7D.9020703@denx.de>
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

Hi Simon,

On 07.05.2016 17:33, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Bin,
>
> On 7 May 2016 at 09:31, Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Stefan,
>>>
>>> On 20 April 2016 at 10:10, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Stefan,
>>>>
>>>> On 20 April 2016 at 10:08, Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de> wrote:
>>>>> On some platforms (e.g. x86), the return value of dev_get_addr() can't
>>>>> be assigned to a pointer type variable directly. As there might be a
>>>>> difference between the size of fdt_addr_t and the pointer type. On
>>>>> x86 for example, "fdt_addr_t" is 64bit but "void *" only 32bit. So
>>>>> assigning the register base directly in dev_get_addr() results in this
>>>>> compilation warning:
>>>>>    warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch introduces the new function dev_get_addr_ptr() that
>>>>> returns a pointer to the 'reg' address that can be used by drivers
>>>>> in this case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese <sr@denx.de>
>>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   drivers/core/device.c |  5 +++++
>>>>>   include/dm/device.h   | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>>   2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>>
>>>> Request below...
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/core/device.c b/drivers/core/device.c
>>>>> index 269087a..1322991 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/core/device.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/core/device.c
>>>>> @@ -673,6 +673,11 @@ fdt_addr_t dev_get_addr(struct udevice *dev)
>>>>>          return dev_get_addr_index(dev, 0);
>>>>>   }
>>>>>
>>>>> +void *dev_get_addr_ptr(struct udevice *dev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +       return (void *)(uintptr_t)dev_get_addr_index(dev, 0);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>>   bool device_has_children(struct udevice *dev)
>>>>>   {
>>>>>          return !list_empty(&dev->child_head);
>>>>> diff --git a/include/dm/device.h b/include/dm/device.h
>>>>> index dad7591..0bcbead 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/dm/device.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/dm/device.h
>>>>> @@ -454,6 +454,16 @@ int device_find_next_child(struct udevice **devp);
>>>>>   fdt_addr_t dev_get_addr(struct udevice *dev);
>>>>>
>>>>>   /**
>>>>> + * dev_get_addr_ptr() - Return pointer to the address of the reg property
>>>>> + *                      of a device
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * @dev: Pointer to a device
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * @return Pointer to addr
>>>>
>>>> Please mention the error condition, e.g. ", or NULL if there is no
>>>> such property"
>>>
>>> I'd like to get this applied. If you like I can fix this when applying?
>>>
>>
>> Looks this was already applied an in mainline. See
>> 28027521be95d27fcb83669e09ce3563bb4dd977
>
> OK thanks, not sure what happened there.

Yes, IIRC, Heiko  applied it with the I2C DWC patches. I've also
added the comment in the header, so this should hopefully be okay.

Thanks,
Stefan