Hi, On 01/13/2015 11:27 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi, > > On 12 January 2015 at 18:24, Joonyoung Shim <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I found below compile warnings, >> >> CC arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.o >> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c: In function ‘clock_get_periph_rate’: >> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c:265:47: warning: array subscript is above >> array bounds [-Warray-bounds] >> struct clk_bit_info *bit_info = &clk_bit_info[peripheral]; >> ^ >> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/exynos/clock.c:265:47: warning: array subscript is above >> array bounds [-Warray-bounds] >> >> ... >>> static unsigned long exynos5_get_periph_rate(int peripheral) >>> { >>> struct clk_bit_info *bit_info = &clk_bit_info[peripheral]; >>> >> >> This can access out of bounds of clk_bit_info[] array from >> exynos5_get_periph_rate(). The peripheral value comes from >> enum periph_id but it gets out of count clk_bit_info[] array. >> >> So, i don't think exynos5_get_periph_rate is working correctly. >> Currently, exynos5_get_periph_rate is used by clock_get_periph_rate only >> from get_pwm_clk. >> >> Is it ongoing to work for generic api to get the clk freq? If not, >> let's remove exynos5_get_periph_rate and clock_get_periph_rate. > > That's going in the wrong direction - these functions make the code > much easier to follow and refactor. We should remove get_pwm_clk(), > get_mmc_clk() etc. and use generic functions instead. >
I know, but current codes are wrong, so first i want to correct it even if it is old way because it's really easy. And then we can go to generic functions. Thanks. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
