Hi. On 01/13/2015 02:40 PM, Akshay Saraswat wrote: > Hi, > >> Hi, >> >> >> On 01/13/2015 11:56 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 12 January 2015 at 18:51, Joonyoung Shim <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On 01/13/2015 11:47 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On 12 January 2015 at 18:36, Joonyoung Shim <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> So not remove the generic functions? >>>>> >>>>> Is it this line which is broken? >>>>> >>>>> clock_get_periph_rate(PERIPH_ID_PWM0); >>>>> >>>>> If so, it seems like everything else uses its own function. It should >>>>> all move easily to the generic function I think. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The basic problem is the generic function is wrong. >>> >>> Oh dear, does it not work for anything? >> >> I have posted the patch relevant to this. I removed the generic peripheral >> clock API. >> It's not used anywhere. Just get clock for pwm0. >> >> how about? >> >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/426535/ >> > > I dont think it's a good idea to remove this function and expect to put in > same > effort again in future. Instead, fixing this warning should be easier. > > By the way, I don't see the mentioned warning when I compile ToT > u-boot-samsung > for smdk5250 and smdk5420 with arm-2011.09 compiler. Do we need any other > patch > or config to encounter this?
It is critical problem. I don't understand how it's working fine. PERIPH_ID_PWM0 is 132, that's out of boundary for clk_bit_info. isn't? Then what's clk_bit_info[132]'s value and how access it? If you fix this problem, we need not to remove clock_get_periph_rate().. But if we need to wait for long time, i want to remove this api. Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung > >> >> Best Regards, >> Jaehoon Chung >>> >>> Regards, >>> Simon >>> _______________________________________________ >>> U-Boot mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot > > Regards, > Akshay Saraswat > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
