On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 05:13:01PM +0100, Jean Pihet wrote: >> Is the name 'omap_sram_push' wrong then? >> What about the following? >> @@ -251,9 +251,8 @@ void * omap_sram_push(void * start, unsigned long size) >> >> omap_sram_ceil -= size; >> omap_sram_ceil = ROUND_DOWN(omap_sram_ceil, sizeof(void *)); >> - memcpy((void *)omap_sram_ceil, start, size); >> - flush_icache_range((unsigned long)omap_sram_ceil, >> - (unsigned long)(omap_sram_ceil + size)); >> >> - return (void *)omap_sram_ceil; >> + return fncpy((void *)omap_sram_ceil, start, size); > > It's more correct, but still missing out on the type safety which we've > tried to provide with fncpy. IIUC the type of the function is propagated from the 2nd argument (funcp) to the return value, which is fine here. The (void)* is here only to avoid a warning thrown by memcpy.
> Note also the other issue with Dave Martin > has raised though - this isn't ready for merging yet. Ok I am using the latest version now and will re-spin the patch. Regards, Jean -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
