On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Guennadi Liakhovetski, > > In message <pine.lnx.4.64.0909152214370.4...@axis700.grange> you wrote: > > > > > pci_read_config_dword (devbusfn, PCI_BASE_ADDRESS_0, > > > - (u32 *) > > > &ide_bus_offset[0]); > > > - ide_bus_offset[0] &= 0xfffffffe; > > > + &ide_bus_offset32); > > > + ide_bus_offset[0] = ide_bus_offset32 & 0xfffffffe; > > > ide_bus_offset[0] = pci_hose_bus_to_phys(&hose, > > > ide_bus_offset[0] & > > > 0xfffffffe, > > > PCI_REGION_IO); > > > > Ok, yes, this looks much better now without casts, but - the double " & > > 0xfffffffe" above seems completely redundant to me. I understand, that > > that's not the problem you're fixing with this patch, and I will perfectly > > understand if you refuse to mix these two fixes, but... Another thing - > > Ah, I see. Sorry I missed that. It's easy to fix. > > > why doesn't the compiler complain about exactly identical cast (ok, > > almost) a couple of lines down for ide_bus_offset[1]? So, how about this > > Good question. Please post it on a gcc mailing ist and report back the > results you get. > > > diff instead (only compile-tested) (not for submission yet, so, no Sob's, > > no patch header): > > Hm, this is much more intrusive - do you have a way to test in on real > hardware?
I have the hardware, yes, and I even have something, that should be a Jtag cable for it... But I don't have near 100% certainty, that if I brick it I will be able in reasonable time to recover it... But, hey, that's what I have that hardware for... So, yes, I would be able to test, just not immediately. Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
