-
foundation.org; dw...@infradead.org; Gala Kumar-B11780
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3][MTD] P4080/mtd: Fix the freescale lbc issue with
36bit mode
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 09:10 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Zang Roy-R61911 r61...@freescale.com
wrote:
What is the different
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Zang Roy-R61911 r61...@freescale.com wrote:
Shouldn't this be u32 or __be32, for consistency with the actual
comparisons below?
__be32 is better.
I disagree, the return from this function is native-endian. It should
be u32.
But the return of this
; linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org; a...@linux-foundation.org;
dw...@infradead.org; Gala Kumar-B11780
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3][MTD] P4080/mtd: Fix the freescale lbc issue with
36bit mode
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:20, Roy Zang tie-fei.z...@freescale.com wrote:
From: Lan Chunhe-B25806 b25
; Gala Kumar-
B11780; linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3][MTD] P4080/mtd: Fix the freescale lbc issue with
36bit mode
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 06:20:32PM +0800, Roy Zang wrote:
[...]
/**
+ * fsl_lbc_addr - convert the base address
+ * @addr_base: base address
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Zang Roy-R61911 r61...@freescale.com wrote:
What is the different for unsigned int and u32? I think they are same.
Roy, please don't ever write code that assumes that sizeof(int) == 4.
There's a reason why we have unsized integer types (like int, long,
and
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 09:10 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Zang Roy-R61911 r61...@freescale.com wrote:
What is the different for unsigned int and u32? I think they are same.
Roy, please don't ever write code that assumes that sizeof(int) == 4.
There's a reason
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Artem Bityutskiy dedeki...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, sizeof(int) == 4 assumption is not good.
But sizeof(int) = 4 is perfectly fine.
I have to disagree. I don't see how you can say that == is not okay,
but = is okay. That just doesn't make any sense.
: linux-...@lists.infradead.org; Wood Scott-B07421; dedeki...@gmail.com;
Lan
Chunhe-B25806; linuxppc-...@ozlabs.org; a...@linux-foundation.org;
dw...@infradead.org; Gala Kumar-B11780
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3][MTD] P4080/mtd: Fix the freescale lbc issue with
36bit mode
On Thu, Sep 9
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 09:35 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Artem Bityutskiy dedeki...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, sizeof(int) == 4 assumption is not good.
But sizeof(int) = 4 is perfectly fine.
I have to disagree. I don't see how you can say that == is not okay,
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Artem Bityutskiy dedeki...@gmail.com wrote:
Unsigned int is reliably = 4 in Linux.
Not exactly. sizeof(unsigned int) is effectively never greater than 4
in Linux (I think it's still 32 bits even on a 64-bit kernel), so it
makes no sense to say =. So since you
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 13:36 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Artem Bityutskiy dedeki...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unsigned int is reliably = 4 in Linux.
Not exactly. sizeof(unsigned int) is effectively never greater than 4
in Linux
I know and said the same in the other
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 13:36:45 -0500
Timur Tabi timur.t...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Artem Bityutskiy dedeki...@gmail.com
wrote:
Unsigned int is reliably = 4 in Linux.
Not exactly. sizeof(unsigned int) is effectively never greater than 4
in Linux (I think it's
...@infradead.org; Gala Kumar-B11780
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3][MTD] P4080/mtd: Fix the freescale lbc issue with
36bit mode
On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:22:10 -0700
Zang Roy-R61911 r61...@freescale.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: geert.uytterhoe...@gmail.com [mailto:geert.uytterhoe
From: Lan Chunhe-B25806 b25...@freescale.com
When system uses 36bit physical address, res.start is 36bit
physical address. But the function of in_be32 returns 32bit
physical address. Then both of them compared each other is
wrong. So by converting the address of res.start into
the right format
On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 12:20, Roy Zang tie-fei.z...@freescale.com wrote:
From: Lan Chunhe-B25806 b25...@freescale.com
When system uses 36bit physical address, res.start is 36bit
physical address. But the function of in_be32 returns 32bit
physical address. Then both of them compared each other
On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 06:20:32PM +0800, Roy Zang wrote:
[...]
/**
+ * fsl_lbc_addr - convert the base address
+ * @addr_base: base address of the memory bank
+ *
+ * This function converts a base address of lbc into the right format for
the BR
+ * registers. If the SOC has eLBC
16 matches
Mail list logo
