Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] dm: core: Add dev_get_addr_ptr() to return a pointer to the reg address

2016-05-07 Thread Stefan Roese
Hi Simon, On 07.05.2016 17:33, Simon Glass wrote: Hi Bin, On 7 May 2016 at 09:31, Bin Meng wrote: Hi Simon, On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Simon Glass wrote: Hi Stefan, On 20 April 2016 at 10:10, Simon Glass wrote: Hi Stefan,

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] dm: core: Add dev_get_addr_ptr() to return a pointer to the reg address

2016-05-07 Thread Simon Glass
Hi Bin, On 7 May 2016 at 09:31, Bin Meng wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Stefan, >> >> On 20 April 2016 at 10:10, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Stefan, >>> >>> On 20 April 2016 at 10:08,

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] dm: core: Add dev_get_addr_ptr() to return a pointer to the reg address

2016-05-07 Thread Bin Meng
Hi Simon, On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > On 20 April 2016 at 10:10, Simon Glass wrote: >> Hi Stefan, >> >> On 20 April 2016 at 10:08, Stefan Roese wrote: >>> On some platforms (e.g. x86), the return value

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] dm: core: Add dev_get_addr_ptr() to return a pointer to the reg address

2016-05-07 Thread Simon Glass
Hi Stefan, On 20 April 2016 at 10:10, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Stefan, > > On 20 April 2016 at 10:08, Stefan Roese wrote: >> On some platforms (e.g. x86), the return value of dev_get_addr() can't >> be assigned to a pointer type variable directly. As there might

[U-Boot] [PATCH] dm: core: Add dev_get_addr_ptr() to return a pointer to the reg address

2016-04-21 Thread Stefan Roese
On some platforms (e.g. x86), the return value of dev_get_addr() can't be assigned to a pointer type variable directly. As there might be a difference between the size of fdt_addr_t and the pointer type. On x86 for example, "fdt_addr_t" is 64bit but "void *" only 32bit. So assigning the register

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] dm: core: Add dev_get_addr_ptr() to return a pointer to the reg address

2016-04-20 Thread Simon Glass
Hi Stefan, On 20 April 2016 at 10:08, Stefan Roese wrote: > On some platforms (e.g. x86), the return value of dev_get_addr() can't > be assigned to a pointer type variable directly. As there might be a > difference between the size of fdt_addr_t and the pointer type. On > x86 for