Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>
>> Dear Kumar,
>>
>> in message <Pine.LNX.
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>>> The idea is that initdram() should really have returned a 'unsigned
>>> long'.
>>> However if we are going to change everyone that has initdram I
>>> figure we
>>> should make it return a phys_addr_t.
>> Um, no, I don't think so.
>
> would phys_size_t be better?
>
>>> +phys_addr_t initdram(int board_type)
>>> {
>>> - long dram_size = 0;
>>> + phys_addr_t dram_size = 0;
>> No - initdram() does not return an address, it returns a size.
>
> Sure, I understand it returns a size. I was just using phys_addr_t to
> represent the type for both addresses and sizes.
>
> - k
Shouldn't we just use size_t to return the size of what is effectively
an array of /n/ bytes of RAM? (Does size_t's baggage WRT different C
standards and different C compilers cause more grief than it solves?)
gvb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
U-Boot-Users mailing list
U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
