On 12/27/2011 05:27 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 26.12.2011 15:58, schrieb Peter Maydell:
diff --git a/hw/sd.c b/hw/sd.c
index 07eb263..2b489d3 100644
--- a/hw/sd.c
+++ b/hw/sd.c
@@ -81,22 +85,22 @@ struct SDState {
uint8_t sd_status[64];
uint32_t vhs;
int wp_switch;
- int *wp_groups;
+ uint8_t *wp_groups;
uint64_t size;
- int blk_len;
+ uint32_t blk_len;
uint32_t erase_start;
uint32_t erase_end;
uint8_t pwd[16];
- int pwd_len;
- int function_group[6];
+ uint32_t pwd_len;
+ uint8_t function_group[6];
- int spi;
- int current_cmd;
+ uint8_t spi;
+ uint8_t current_cmd;
/* True if we will handle the next command as an ACMD. Note that this does
* *not* track the APP_CMD status bit!
*/
- int expecting_acmd;
- int blk_written;
+ bool expecting_acmd;
Why have you changed expecting_acmd and enable to bool, but spi
to a uint8_t and wp_groups[] to a uint8_t[] ? This isn't very
consistent. (I'm vaguely against bool because you then end up
making other changes to change '1' to 'true' and so on.)
@@ -1706,5 +1710,44 @@ int sd_data_ready(SDState *sd)
void sd_enable(SDState *sd, int enable)
{
- sd->enable = enable;
+ sd->enable = enable ? true : false;
This kind of thing is why I don't like bool :-)
x = 1 should work with bool when not doing x == true anywhere, here
!!enable would be an alternative. Maybe change int enable to bool, too?
Andreas
As Peter mentioned previously, we should use either uint8_t or bool for
all binary variables for consistency, and we probably shouldn't use bool
for wp_groups array since sizeof(bool) uncertainty. So I'm considering
just make everything uint8_t.
--
Mitsyanko Igor
ASWG, Moscow R&D center, Samsung Electronics
email: i.mitsya...@samsung.com
