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,
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,
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
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
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo